< September 19	September 21 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 07:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network Universe: FusionFall[edit]

Future product. Unreferenced except for primary site and a youtube video. Talks about "confirmed" details without sources for verification. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:N.

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it is kept unimproved for five days. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 00:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable third party sources. --Banime (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trivially passes notability guidelines. A quick search on google news for 'fusionfall' shows that it has had articles about it in Variety[1], Wired[2], and Macworld[3] and more can be expected to appear in the next few days. Maybe cut down trhe unsourced information, but don't delete what you can improve. — PyTom (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Trim per PyTom Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just needs some references. Chaoshi (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Sources found by Pytom more than enough (the macworld one in particular). Hobit (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup — found some good sources here, here, and here. Those YouTube links have to go, as well as the other unencyclopedic material. MuZemike (talk) 04:13, 25 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. Blatant advertising; no sources. Nada. seicer | talk | contribs 19:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chatspace[edit]

I can find reliable sources for this chat platform. The article claims that it was popular during the 1990s, but the only reliable source that backs up the claim is the official site. Schuym1 (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no notability. Not much context or content; I'm sure there's a couple more policies that this violates. RockManQ (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am redirecting the lot to 90210 (TV series)#Characters, history is in tact and if more of the content should be merged, feel free to do so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Ward[edit]

Non-notable character (WP:N), plot- and trivia-only article (WP:NOT#PLOT). Request for evidence of notability was ignored and redirect was reverted, so I am coming here.

Nominated for the same reason:

(to be extended if more character redirects are reverted) – sgeureka ^t•c 23:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with a little more information, since apparently this a is a major show. Perhaps the right way to do these would have been to revert the redirect, explain why, and if necessary ask for a third opinion, in the correct manner for disputes on content. I can not see that I or any other neutral ed. would have supported keeping them as separate articles. In fact, I redirected some articles on character in this series myself, and had you asked me, I would have reverted this one, which would probably have established consensus well enough. (It is of course possible that the series may become of such great importance that articles on the main characters were justified, but I cannot see this at the current time.) DGG (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:42, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to JHunterJ for pointing out what I missed — that there were three keep !votes from the same user. The only reasonable closure as such is delete. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Archer (disambiguation)[edit]

Only 2 dab entries (I've already changed the hatnote in Lee Archer). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Should this have had a PROD first? According to WP:MOSDAB, Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary meaning. In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless. I would concur with ClarityFiend that this dab is not necessary, but it is harmless and potentially helpful. Lee Archer is also a relatively common name, one which may well have another notable added in the near future and require a dab to be written again. Dabs are cheap, so I think WP:MOSDAB doesn't support deletion of dabs which aren't strictly necessary but are harmless. Boleyn (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orphan page with no utility/helpfulness. (Yes, it could have been (successfully) prodded.) Many deleted pages were cheap and harmless. When future WP articles on other Lee Archers are created, the dab page could then be created too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a concern that it's an orphan page, dabs aren't meant to be linked to; this was linked to until when this was nominated, which has now been changed. If dabs are not allowed to have only 2 entries, then WP:MOSDAB would need to be altered to make that the case. Boleyn (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that they aren't allowed; it's that they aren't needed. Since it's an orphan dab page with no incoming links, no WP reader will ever reach the page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unneeded disambiguation as the Lee Archer page already has a hatnote to the pilot, which makes the disambiguation orphaned. The disambiguation provides an extra step that someone looking for the pilot would have to go though if he/she searched "Lee Archer". The hatnote works perfectly fine as well so I see no reason to keep the disambig. Tavix (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand your points, but WP:MOSDAB clearly does not support deletion if a dab has 2 entries, including one with the main page (e.g. Lee Archer). Boleyn (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSDAB is clearly neutral on deletes of dabs with 2 entries, one of which is primary. They are harmless, yes, but they are also useless. So if an editor feels the need to nominate for deletion, they can be deleted without creating a navigational problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only two entries. Schuym1 (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone has added a third entry to the dab. However, I think it's important that the position on dabs such as this was is made clear. My interpretation of WP:MOSDAB is that they do not warrant deletion. If this is incorrect, then it would be best for WP:MOSDAB to be reworded to say these are not permitted. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 24 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) 22:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio (Band)[edit]

Non-notable band founded in 2007. Article contains no reliable sources. I did some searching on Google for sources for this band but couldn't find any. If anyone can any reliable sources for this article, I'll withdraw this deletion nom. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Band is still not too popular as it is a newly formed band... and it would be hard to find it in google because of the band's name "Radio" which is very common...

But here is a video of them ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-eldX9SRzo If you want more sources, i will try to find them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskar20 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is a question asked in Yahoo Answers! on this band...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080910215034AADmTvo Bhaskar20 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Here is their song on Imeem... http://www.imeem.com/bhaskarswaroop/music/lWTQfgpk/radio_musafir/ Bhaskar20 (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would want to keep the Article - There is enough proof that the band exists but not enough to show that the band is popular. The band is 6 months old and had recently come to fame after being in a Bollywood hit film - Rock On!! But, I would still want the article to be kept. Whats the point of deleting the article when the page is going to be made again in a few months when RADIO would be a sensation. But, here is their Soundclick page, i guess - http://www.soundclick.com/members/default.cfm?member=radioreligion Nawal.1991 (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is the proof of the Radio being a band - http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=871828 , now the deletion of the page would be injustified Nawal.1991 (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with the sources you provided about is that they are not reliable sources. I'm sure that the band Radio exists, but the question is: are they a notable band? The links you gave such as the Yahoo! Answers and YouTube are unreliable. Soundclick.com isn't a third-party source because it appears to be written by the band itself. Cunard (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I completely agree with Cunard. The band is an upcoming band with potential to revolutionize the indian music, but atleast for now the band is not famous enough to have an article in Wikipedia. The article can be an exception case but it all depends on the Admin. We still have 3 days to give a newspaper link or something, but no user uploaded stuff. Bhaskar20 (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The band's page in Orkut has around 150 fans, which shows the popularity of the band... Will RADIO's page with 150 fans help?, And Cunard, whats with your userpage? It says that "Cunard is a douche", you should fix that...Nawal.1991 (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete:Contains no references to assert notability. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete. those arguing for keep so far seem to have misunderstood the rationale given for deletion. That the band exists is obvious, but it is not notable, and is unsourced so is also unverifiable. the only argument against that is to find reliable third party sources that have non-trivial coverage. as none can be found, this article fails poicy and must be deleted. If they get famous later, then sources will appear and the article can be re-written.Yobmod (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete : I too think that the page should be deleted as the band is not famous. The page will be made later after the band is famous enough to have a page in Wikipedia, well 2 days left before deletion... Bhaskar20 (talk) 23:18, 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 Speedy Keep perfectly notable and newsworthy event, possible bad-faith nomination, snow (non-admin closure). RockManQ (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash[edit]

WP:NOT#NEWS. Idiots fuck off, everybody else agree that this has no place here. Everyme 22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for lack of notability, but Everyme, please refrain from personal attacks. Superm401 - Talk 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the more noteworthy aviation incidents in 2008. I read the (somewhat murkily written) policy you cited, and it doesn't preclude notable accidents like this. If we tried to create an article about a not-otherwise-notable person who died in this crash, that would certainly fall under WP:NOT#NEWS, but an article about the crash itself seems fine.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator does not make a reasonable reason to delete and resorts to personal attacks. About the article itself, this is a notable aviation incident per User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's argument. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. if for nothing else because the nom is hopelessly rude and anti-consensus and we should not seriously consider such mean-spirited efforts. But I mean, there are sources, there's a claim to importance... let's wait a week or two for events to become more well established and the importance of this event to become clearer. Note that we have articles one of the two most notable(as far as I know) plane-crashes-involving-American-musicians: The Day the Music Died, but not the other (see Lynard_Skynard#Plane_crash_.281977.29). Probably merge to relevant articles eventually, but nominating articles like this on the day they occur is not going to generate a very useful consensus in ambiguous cases. --Rividian (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per Doc Strange, The Back, and Rividian. - BillCJ (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. This is a newsworthy event. A Google News search returns over 500 articles about this crash. There are sources from The New York Times, St. Louis Today, etc. Furthermore, the nom's rude behavior is appalling. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Rividian and everyone else that the nominator has not put in enough effort as to explain why this article needs to be deleted. If anything, I feel his consideration is nothing more than a personal issue. This is a current event and a possible important aviation disaster and I do not see why it shouldn't be kept seeing as other small air disasters have their own articles. Furik (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC x 3) *Keep. Certainly one of the more colorful nominations I've seen. Fat Man has it right; the newsworthiness of the event is not disputed by the nom, rather whether it is encyclopedic in nature. The event is notable, and given the nexus with a number of notable people and groups, it wouldn't fit comfortably into any one of their articles. Perhaps we inmates are running the asylum, eh? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Given that this article touches upon several existing articles in a significant manner, it serves, if nothing else, as a means to provide consistency of coverage of this event between the articles this even affects. Both survivors are notable in their own right, and it has had a significant impact on the operations at Columbia Metropolitan Airport, closing it down for at least most of today. Absent those impacts, it would have been worth at most a section in the Learjet 60 article. That's at least four separate existing articles I know of that it touches upon enough to warrant a mention, three significantly, and enables a short summary section in each of those that emphasizes the details relevant thereto, while providing ready access to greater details for those interested. By comparison, the Lynard Skynard crash has a obvious central article for gathering info about the crash into. (Disclaimer, I started this article.) Carolina wren (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close A snowball notwithstanding, I think that the discussion can and should be closed. There's no harm if it's revisited in a few months. Any complaints about this being an sudden and emotional reaction to breaking news are offset by a nomination that appears to be an equally sudden and emotional reaction. If someone wants to raise the issue of recentism-- and can do that without saying, in advance, that anyone who disagrees is an idiot who should, uh, go elsewhere -- that would be the way to do it in the future. Mandsford (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Never mind the news coverage, the NTSb has dispatched a go-team to the site, which is unusual for general aviation crashes. It's entirely possible the accident will end up being unremarkable as an accident and may be reliant on the persons involved to be notable. But right now it has every right to be considered notable simply on the accident basis alone. To clarify the 'go-team' statement. The NTSb has dispatched a team of 11 persons, including a senior investigator and one of the five board members. For most GA accidents, they send precisely no-one. THEY obviously think this one is more important than the norm, hence notable.MadScot (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Accidents of this magnitude happen all the time. Fans of Travis Barker may see this as a major news event, others will not. A mention in his own article is enough - WP is not a tabloid. Almost Anonymous (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it's not just an incident involving Travis Barker. It's a notable event which has several Google News hits (and another well known musician was also injured in the crash), so it's not just Blink-182 fancruft Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but most GA accidents generally don't disrupt airline service at an airport for a full day (and possibly more if they can't get the debris cleaned up in time to open in the morning. As I noted before, the interaction with several different existing articles is a major reason to keep it. Carolina wren (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a bad faith nomination. Tavix (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep First of all, shame on the nominator for his language. I usually would vote on these stories as delete because of only local notability, but there were six people involved in this crash, and for now thank God this wasn't a second The Day the Music Died. It is notable not only for the fame of the people involved, but for the NTSB response to the event. Nate • (chatter) 23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a developing story and definitely as notable as the 2008 Chatsworth train collision. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep also propose closing per WP:SNOW -Marcusmax (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep definitely notable --Banime (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have my reasons, but that nom doesn't deserve to hear them. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep incident is notable and has verifiable and reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 01:43, 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. BJ^Talk 07:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual gallery of toucans[edit]

Contested prod. This page is nothing but a collection of images, which violates WP:NOT. If it would be expanded to be truly an identification guide (which hasn't been done in its first year of existence), then it would still violate WP:NOT a how-to guide, and it would be at the wrong title anyway. The page as it stands is not an article and can (with its current title) never be an acceptable wikipedia page. Fram (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nice images, but not appropriate for an article. Brilliantine (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NOT. Huon (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY policy, item 4. As per nom, expanding as a field guide would not be an encyclopedic topic. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a proper article aubject. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for image galleries. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a repository; articles consist only of image collections. SchfiftyThree 01:50, 11 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, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the previous close of this AfD was contested and overturned at DRV. The closing comment is still viewable in the history.Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - This deletion request was closed as "The result of the debate was keep, as no consensus. Closing comments: This really should have been taken to the policy level for wider community input, since this effort may be used to set standards by setting a precedent." While not directly relating to the present types of galleries, I think the comment about "This really should have been taken to the policy level for wider community input" should be taken into account in closing this AfD. AfD is not the place to establish policy level decisions. -- Suntag ☼ 14:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some links that may add to the discussion include (in no particular order): Category:Images of toucans *** Flower gallery (2nd nomination) *** List of birds of Panama *** List of birds of Nicaragua *** Visual gallery of Adelidae AfD *** Gallery of beloniform fishes AfD *** Image:Flores.gif *** Air Disasters Picture Gallery AfD *** Gallery of 1900 Galveston Hurricane images AfD *** Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower gallery *** Wikipedia:Galleries *** Wikipedia:Gallery namespace *** Wikipedia:Meetup/Gallery *** Category:Wikipedia image galleries *** Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats/Gallery *** Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Gallery *** Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries *** Breast#Gallery^{Not work safe images}. -- Suntag ☼ 22:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one Handbook of the Birds of the World. -- Suntag ☼ 06:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Toucans as a gallery.- There are bird field guide books largely composed of photos with a little text. I have one on clouds that is just photos and names with an index table of information. A gallery of images of nature similar to bird field guide books would seem encyclopedic. Wikipedia does include galleries in articles. See, for example, the twenty eight images in Breast#Gallery^{Not work safe images}. There even is an edit button that produces
<gallery> Image:Example.jpg|Caption1 Image:Example.jpg|Caption2 </gallery>

for an article. It would been nice to see discussion on why articles similar to nature field guide books cannot be maintained in Wikipedia. I think that images can convey much more information than some lists we have. However, in view of the prior attempts to establish article galleries as a format for articles (see above), this issue may be better resolved by a wider policy discussion. -- Suntag ☼ 22:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am personally OK with the merge, but it will create several problems:
  1) The gallery is almost as long as the article is; I'm not sure that a merge will result in a balanced article.
  2) What if me, or someone else would want to make a similar gallery, about a family that has much more species? Nikola (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Article size applies to articles and Wikipedia:Summary style provides more instructions along those lines. -- Suntag ☼ 14:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Suntag suggests. A very reasonable way to deal with this for the time being. DGG (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the toucan article should not be cluttered with a gallery; toucon photos should be put in their commons category and the existing link to the commons category is all that is required.--Grahame (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons is not an encyclopedia. A toucan gallery on Commons should not be an encyclopedic overview of toucan species; it should be a gallery of the best toucan pictures we have, and it should link toucan species galleries and categories, not to Wikipedia articles about species. Nikola (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Suntag. Though moving to commons with a link from Toucan may be another viable option. This is clearly a valuable, even necessary project but the topic is a poor fit for a stand-alone article. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. —-- Suntag ☼ 06:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge obviously not an article, so can't stand alone. Shouldn't be dumped as a gallery at Toucan either. I've just excised a trivia section from that article, and a massive gallery is just pictorial trivia. The images are available for appropriate use in articles, they don't have to be in use all the time. jimfbleak (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up Nikola's point, what about having galleries for parrot, hummingbird, tyrant flycatcher and Columbidae, each with 300+ species? jimfbleak (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge. Galleries of species is what Wiki Commons is for. Wikipedia is for articles. Now the article on toucans could be improved, no doubt, and when I have time I will get round to it (after I have finished woodpecker and swallow and new zealand wren and gull and auk and tern and god knows how many articles. And when I do a representative number of images of the family can be included - and it isn't a big family. To touch on previous comments - a separate article that lists every species is appropriate in families of multiple species but it would be unfeasable to have a visual list of the tyrant flycatchers., for example. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I presume they are all on commons? Selected images can and I am sure will be spread about the various toucan pages. So I suppose that is merge bits. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. There is Wikimedia Commons for this page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prose, list, gallery comment. WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies to "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles." This page has some text. I think the general desire here is to have a Wikipedia article designed to help the reader distinguish between similar objects of natural occurrence such as wildlife (plants and animals) and minerals. As part of a publicly-accessible Internet guide, Wikipedia gallery articles are. I believe, to be a browsable picture guide organized by family, color, shape, location or other descriptors to help users distinguish animals, plants, and minerals. I think the a main question is how little text is enough? When you factor in the significant information conveyed by images of naturally occuring objects organized by family, color, shape, location, prehaps less text is needed for such an article than other forms of Wikipedia articles (list, prose). Before deleting this aritlce, there should be consensus on whether this article contains enough text or a likelihood that it will contain enough text in the future. This AfD should not serve as a place to establish policy and then implement that very same policy.

What text? Text means coherent prose, not labels for images or groups of images? A commons gallery is the appropriate location, Wikipedia isn't a how-to, Any proper prose should be added to Toucan itself. jimfbleak (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and expand to a title such as List of toucan species or similar, including a short piece of text describing each species (e.g. where it can be found). A "list of..." article wouldn't require much expansion, and would provide a suitable place for displaying the images. --RFBailey (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this solves the problem. If you are going to have one image per species, you might as well do it at Toucan, since there aren't an impossible number of species (see Nuthatch). If you have all the images in the List of toucan species, you are back with a gallery. jimfbleak (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hopefully someone will organise the pictures over at commons, and the commons link on toucan will make them available. The possible rename to list and expand wouldn't be terrible (see List of birds of Nicaragua, although who is going to do the work?), but making an article just to host pictures is the wrong way around for an encylopedia. Pictures illustrate an article, and article doesn't host pictures - wp is not flicker.Yobmod (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The toucans are watching you... Wikipedia is not a collection of Big Brother's toucan slaves. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:26, 24 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 closed as the article did not exist. If the nominator wished to propose for deletion Category:Historic house museums in Florida, you are welcome to list it at WP:CFD. None-admin closure. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historic house museums in Florida[edit]

This article seems very obscure and pointless to have been created. It is a very random category to have created an article about and should not have even been thought to be created by this user. Who would really like to know what historic house museums exist in Florida. JDelo93 (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there has never been an article at Historic house museums in Florida, as far as I can tell. Did you mean Category:Historic house museums in Florida? If so the place is WP:CFD. --Rividian (talk) 21:38, 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) 22:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Je state[edit]

No Google Book Search hits, no reliable source from Google hits, Books cited in the article do not support the existence of such a state. (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete，no any references and could not find any clues for existence of this state in related history books.--Webridge (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reasons. (It should be noted, however, that the existence and notability of the individuals listed are supported by Chinese historical sources which are not cited in the article -- but those historical sources do not support a suggestion that the state could really be treated as an independent post-Goguryeo state.) Please also see related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yi Jeonggi. --Nlu (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. It should be noted that the article was created by the since-blocked sockpuppet Hairwizard91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is probably, however, not CSD-G5 speedy-deletable due to other users' contributions. --Nlu (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:45, 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 no consensus. An unusual situation where the author of the article argues for deletion and the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. I am not convinced that everybody will deem the party notable based on a few news stories, but there is certainly not a sufficient consensus for deletion at this time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK Community Issues Party[edit]

I have not been able to find a reliable, independent, and secondary source offering non-trivial coverage of this party. As a result, I believe the article breaks WP:N. Some people may argue that all political parties are notable, but I do not believe a party, which fielded three candidates back in 2005-gaining only 502 votes total for all three-can be considered notable. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Avram has been able to find numerous sources that, although individually do not offer significant coverge, together suggest that UK Community Issues Party is notable enough for Wikipedia. As a result, I would like my Nomination Withdrawn. Thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete completely non-notable, I'm afraid. Sticky Parkin 22:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with JEdgarFreeman, no reliable independent secondary sources offering non-trivial coverage, so this should go. Warofdreams talk 23:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to note that Warofdreams is the creator of the article. Thank you for your agreement that it should be deleted, Warofdreams. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak, qualified Keep: I just did a wholesale rewrite of the article. It might still have notability problems, but it is now in line with quality and sourcing guidelines. I don't think that the article in it current state would have attracted a RfD, even if it might still be of borderline notability. But now that I've invested time, I'm a little biased. Avram (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There was a full-length story on the party in the local newspaper. Citation added to the article, along with a couple more mentions that add nice, third-party tidbits to the piece. Between the 3+ campaigns it has unsuccessfully participated in and the media coverage, I think this should pass WP:N. Avram (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of all the sources that are cited in the article, including the ones that have recently been listed, the closest I have come to discovering a "full-length story", is this source [4]. This source is mainly focused on a candidate of the party, as opposed to the party itself, which means that the source is not a "full-length story on the party". Having said that, the coverage of the party itself in the source is more than trivial, imo. However, WP:N states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources [plural] that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." Unfortunately, of the other two sources that have been recently been listed by Avram (the third recently listed source was the one that I have addressed above), both are offering only trivial coverage, with one merely stating "UK Community Issues Party, led by Woking’s Michael Osman, stood in two wards and polled 110 votes across the two" with regards to the UK Community Issues Party; and the other stating that the UK Community Issues Party has registered a same complaint as the Labour Party did, with the Labour Party's complaint receiving the significant coverage in the source. In summary, whilst the first source I addressed does provide non-trivial coverage, WP:N states that multiple reliable, and independent sources offering significant coverage are needed, and I do not believe that has been statisfied by the article. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment JEdgarFreeman, I understand your concern that this is a truly fringe party without any chance of going anywhere. I continued to look at Surrey news, and found a couple more pieces of information. Taken together, I feel that the half-dozen small-to-medium mentions of the party amount to pretty good evidence that this is a persistent gadfly in local politics. The party, broadly speaking, has fielded candidates at least four times, and it's still active. Resilience, continued media interest (even not so major interest), long-term participation in political processes-- what else can you ask for? No, it's not going to win. Avram (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Avram, firstly, thank you for the work you have put into the article. It has definetly improved. Unfortunately, I do not believe it now passes WP:N, as WP:N states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." The Electoral Commission only offers trivial coverage of the party (specifically, the Electoral Commission has published directories, listing votes obtained by the party, the fact that it is registered e.t.c.). The UK Community Issues Party websites that are cited in the article are not "independent of the subject", and thus cannot be used to establish notability according to WP:N. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment JEdgarFreeman, I think that the proposed notability standards for political parties would count this party as notable, as it fulfills "The Campaign Clause". Additionally, while it's not the only one of them to come under fire for notability, most of the other parties just above the 500-vote mark in the 2005 UK general election also have articles. Again, imagine this article hadn't been so abysmal in the first place. I don't think we'd think twice about keeping it. Avram (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Unfortunately, Wikipedia:Notability (political parties) is a proposed guideline, as you have said, rather than an actual guideline. As for articles on parties who have had the same amount of success as the UK Community Issues Party, those articles themselves may not be warranted. As has been stated on other deletion discussions, the fact that an article exists of the same claim to notability as an article being considered for deletion, does not mean that the article being considered for deletion should be kept. As they say, if a million people make a mistake, it's still a mistake. I do want this article to be kept, so long as it meets WP:N. It is because I do not believe this article meets WP:N that I would have made the decision to nominate it for deletion, even if the first time I had seen the article was in its improved state under Avram. Trivial coverage in The Electoral Commission websites, and websites that are not independent of the subject, are not enough to establish notability according to WP:N.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 09:22, 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. Tiptoety ^talk 06:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red bull hangover[edit]

Neologism. Not encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dougie WII (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef, NEO, and OR. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Julian described it perfectly. VG ☎ 22:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only refs are for the Urban Dictionary and a University student newspaper, hardly noteworthy. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A dicdef of a non notable neologism. Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this neologism, as discussed above. Cliff smith ^talk 02:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article describes a real phenomenon, one that is supported by real references. The objections that the article's title is a neologism can be addressed simply by renaming the article. Geo Swan (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move some information To The "Caffine intoxication" portion of the Caffine page. Either that or to the page of the relevant drug in Red Bull whose overdose causes these symptoms. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 22:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article does describe a real phenomenon, if it were moved to either the caffine page or the Taurine page, it wouldnt confine with the symptoms. Red bull and energy drinks are a mixture of sugar, caffeine and taurine. Mixing these with alcohol give different symptoms. I would just recommend changing the name.--87.177.204.35 (talk) 15:56, 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. Tiptoety ^talk 06:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Opera Community[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Second nomination. I believe that the issues were inadequately discussed in the previous discussion:

Having no significant coverage in reliable sources except for one eWeek article, the subject of the article fails the notability guidelines of WP:WEB, particularly the mandate for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself".
- A response by Vetler in the previous discussion is little more than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:BIGNUMBER, which are not notability arguments. The "endorsement" of My Opera Community by Tim Berners-Lee as pointed out by Kjetil Kjernsmo is likewise irrelevant.
- WP:OUTCOMES#Internet states, "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable". The My Opera Community therefore requires a greater than usual burden of proof to establish notability, and this burden is obviously not met.
All of the sources cited, except for the aforementioned one, are from the official Opera and My Opera websites, which are not reliable sources.

Comment: They are reliable enough in this context, but not 3rd party. There's a difference between these notions. VG ☎ 19:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above, the article is mostly fancruft. The subject maybe deserves brief treatment in Opera (web browser), but not its own article. —J.P. Doul (^TALK/_{CONTRIBUTIONS}) 20:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google search brings up 6.3 million results. There also seem to be articles on it. [5] [6] [7] Finding these articles only took a few minutes. I am sure that plenty of sources can be found with more looking. Cleanup is not a reason to delete. Captain panda 22:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a few sources and the website is used as a socialnetworking site for a heap of people The article does need a clean up though, but not a deletion. Fosnez (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Captain panda and Fosnez. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 24 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. BJ^Talk 07:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manifold Destiny[edit]

While this page is purportedly about an article in the New Yorker, it is in fact a lightly disguised attack page on several Chinese mathematicians, much of which was written by IPs and SPAs during a strange Russian v. Chinese fight a few years ago. Much of the page consists of poorly sourced scurrilous gossip and speculation in violation of the WP:BLP policies. (The New Yorker article itself is not a reliable source for this gossip, and has been criticized by many of the people it quotes for its inaccuracy.) After removing the BPL violations from this page, there would be nothing worth keeping that is not already included in other articles. R.e.b. (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "article itself is not a reliable source for this gossip". Can you prove it isn't or do we have to take your POV for granted?

• "has been criticized by many of the people it quotes for its inaccuracy". Find sources that provide those accurate statements and balance it. Controversy is notable enough that they should exist if your claim is true. VG ☎ 23:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COATRACK. An individual article in a magazine doesn't seem to be notable, and the rest is just all bad. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK is a completely non-binding essay. VG ☎ 22:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the recommended fix given in WP:COATRACK is to edit the article; deletion is recommended only in extreme circumstances. VG ☎ 23:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Obviously, some single articles in magazines are notable. It's silly to say a single magazine article can't be notable. This one received vast amounts of publicity. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Major controversy in mathematics. If there are BLP issues (which precisely?) they can be fixed in the article. VG ☎ 22:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The New Yorker article was clearly one of the most notable pieces of mathematical journalism in the last decade (if not of all time; I can't think of any other magazine article with a similar impact). This (wikipedia) article amply documents the notability. Also the w. article hews very closely to the NY article, so I don't see what all the "coatrack" objections are about. Absolutely a topic that deserves a wikipedia article, and the present article is rather good and well-sourced. Plclark (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Plclark. The article is a model of neutral tone and is amply, properly sourced. The objection that it is merely one article in one magazine could be addressed, for example, by creating an article Controversy over Perelman's proof of the Poincaré Conjecture, but I think this will amount to merely a name change. The fact that Yau is slighted by the New Yorker article does not make this article a BLP violation, since we are not the ones doing the slighting either by POV writing or by giving undue weight to criticism. Actually, the criticism is well-balanced with counter-criticism, all attributed to reliable sources. There is only one "citation needed", and actually, it's wrong: the claim is supported by the Times article already cited in the same paragraph (I've removed the tag already). In fact, each paragraph is supported by a source. There is no "scurrilous gossip" nor "speculation" in this article, except insofar as it is reported from the New Yorker article, and any controversial claims there are analyzed and presented in this article in the full context of the controversy they created. The New Yorker article made a big splash and also a big stink, both of which facts are documented widely, and this is what our article is about. It is possible that Yau (or others) would not want the memory of this issue kept alive (though I am not claiming this is the case), but it is not defamatory or even unfair to present the controversy as we have done here. Ryan Reich (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not ready to take a "keep" or "delete" position yet (and maybe I'll never get to that) but if the article is a scurrilous attack on innocent persons, is it not nonetheless possible to write a Wikipedia article about that that is not that same sort of thing? For example, one can write an article about the forged pamphlet titled Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion without endorsing its views. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The nominator, R.e.b., writes, "...much of which was written by IPs and SPAs during a strange Russian v. Chinese fight a few years ago." It's funny how memory plays tricks sometimes. This is at best highly misleading. After the creation of the article by Kidiawipe, the article looked like this. It is in fact a fairly factual description of the article, with, as far as I see, no partisan slant to it, although one could question the creation of the article. After some very minor editing by IPs and a lot more editing by regular editors (including removal of obviously inappropriate editing by some SPAs and IPs), it looked like this. Now is this so different than the nominated version? I think not. Sure there are some differences: the lede has gained some cruft and repetition, and now there is a "reactions from the math community" section which was mostly written by a regular contributor. So at best, if we want R.e.b's comment to be correct, we would have to interpret his comment to be an exaggeration of Kidiawipe's status as basically an SPA. However, despite the lack of edit history, I see no need to cast aspersions upon this editor or to suspect that the contributions were done in bad faith.

(continued) Now speaking of that "reactions" section, that is probably the only part of the article I think WP:COATRACK could possibly apply to. One could argue the section is written to be about reactions to the controversy itself, rather than direct comments on the article. A justification though would be that the reason the controversy even exists to the degree it does is because of the article. For example, Joan Birman's letter in the AMS Notices directly references the article as a reason for her writing. Indeed, initially there was no controversy as such. Just the usual academic infighting and a rather unusual character. The NY article basically created the controversy and it took a life of its own. Enough that it gained attention as a controversy in the popular press, and enough that when the AMS canceled an event at the annual meeting, it garnered a mention in Nature! --C S (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article documents a significant mathematical controversy. Instead of renaming it "Controversy over Perelman's proof", I would suggest renaming it "Yau-New Yorker controversy". Had Perelman participated in the controversy, one could have called it "Yau-Perelman controversy". Katzmik (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the "keep", but I completely disagree with any renaming involving the word "controversy". It is not Wikipedia's place to go around declaring things as controversies, and would note that Katzmik has been creating articles such as Bishop-Keisler controversy and Brouwer-Hilbert controversy, which are far from being encyclopedic in content or style. Geometry guy 13:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded at your talk page. Katzmik (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is interesting to compare this with WP:Articles for deletion/Tian-Yau Conflict, which was also nominated for deletion by R.e.b. and quite rightly deleted. The distinction between the views expressed there and here shows a clear consensus on where Wikipedia draws the line in relation to controversial issues about living persons. First, the topic must be notably and thoroughly documented in reliable sources. Second, Wikipedia must be able to take a scrupulously neutral and detached approach to the topic, sticking to the sourced facts and letting the reader form their own opinion: this includes a title reflecting a neutral approach, and reliable sources documenting the positions of all significant viewpoints.

In this case, although the current article needs to be ruthlessly cut back to its factual bare bones, it is clear that the New Yorker article is notable and well reported in reliable secondary sources. Hence we keep the article, and clean it up. Geometry guy 13:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in an explanation of both of your criticisms of this article: that it uses the word "controversy" without being sourced, and that it exceeds its "factual bare bones". It would of course be inappropriate for someone to write an article on a "controversy" that does not yet exist, in order to attract attention or present a point of view, but the word itself is not special, and it or one like it is necessary to describe the events set off by the New Yorker article. Our article documents a public clash of opinions and interests related to the NY's article's claims, and calling this a "controversy" is like calling a person's statement "opinion" (presuming that it was an opinion, etc.): in other words, it's common sense and common usage, and more importantly, there is no alternative: this is the word that describes the concept. Avoiding words that display a judgement when we are only reporting the judgement is also a form of bias.

I also do not see how our article ventures beyond the facts. It meticulously sources every claim and statement and makes no synthesis beyond assembling them in chronological order and ascribing causality to certain progressions of events (whose letter was a response to what, for example) which is anyway essentially explicit in the events themselves. I can see two potential issues, but they are issues of deficiency, not excess: first, I do not know and do not wish to attempt to verify that all the published facts related to this controversy are given due weight in this article, or whether there exist further letters to the editor, legal developments, interviews, accusations, or retractions (etc.) that aren't mentioned; second, the final section on reactions of the mathematical community is apparently arbitrary, in that although it presents various instances of soul-searching on matters of professional ethics and race, it gives no indication that these are representative of the entirety of the claimed response. It is, furthermore, difficult for the reader to get a sense of this since the facts in this section do not form as clear a timeline or chain of events as those in the previous sections; one is not sure whether the items presented have been somehow cherry-picked. Ryan Reich (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a famous mathematician expresses this type of sentiment that in itself may be newsworthy. I think one should be very stringent about interpreting the adjective "famous" in this case. Katzmik (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That section was clearly destined for the garbage bin, which is what I did. Katzmik (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Geometry guy 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that the article uses the word "controversy" without it being sourced. However, it certainly contains far more than the facts.
- First sentence: "priority dispute" is interpretation/analysis/opinion.
- Last paragraph of the lead: "paints an unflattering portrait of the 1982 Fields Medallist, Shing-Tung Yau". According to whom?
- First section: "Dramatis personae (in order of appearance)" is unencyclopedic phrasing and synthesis.
- Summary section: "the authors present a complex narrative that touches upon matters peripheral to the Poincaré conjecture but reflective of politics in the field of mathematics". According to whom? Wikipedia?
- "the title of the paper dramatically changed" Does the article say "dramatically". If not, who does?
- "This alleged incidence with the journal has not been confirmed by an outside source, however, no one involved has yet made a statement claiming that it is false." Is this Wikipedia's observation, or has it been noted in reliable sources?
- Controversy section: "The controversy revolves around its emphasis on Yau's alleged stake in the Poincaré conjecture, its view that Yau was unfairly taking credit away from Perelman, and its depiction of Yau's supposed involvement in past controversies." Who's analysis of the controversy is this?
- "Yau's legal efforts have not progressed beyond his September letter. The New Yorker has stood firmly by its story." POV juxtaposition and style.
- "In a twist, after the publication of Manifold Destiny, plagiarism was discovered in Cao and Zhu's paper." Accusations of plagiarism MUST BE ATTRIBUTED. Wanna be sued???

I certainly sympathise with R.e.b. bringing this to AfD. The article should be kept, but I hope the above helps editors bring the article in line with important policies like WP:BLP. Geometry guy 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not say here that this article uses "controversy" without sourcing it, but you did say on your talk page in response to Katzmik that you think the word should not be used unless it is used in general by reliable sources; I assumed that you meant this to apply to this article as well as to the others you were discussing there. My responses to some of your points:
- "unflattering portrait" can be altered to say, for example, "according to Yau, the article presented an unfairly negative view on him and his relationship to the proof effort", or something along those lines. This can obviously be backed up by any number of sources already given in the article, and such a statement obviously belongs in the lead since it summarizes (some of) the contents of the article.
- "this alleged incidence(sic) has not been confirmed...": this one is interesting, in that it is literally true and its apparent meaning is relevant and important, but the absence of this statement, while implying sort of the same thing (a lack of certain information) would also imply something rather different. I see this sentence as a statement of the extent of the available information: "we looked, and there isn't anything published about this incident, but on the other hand, no one has said it isn't true either. Basically, it's the New Yorker's word alone". There is possibly a more neutral way of saying it, but failing to include such a sentence would leave the impression that the New Yorker's account of the incident is more reliable than it is.
- "the controversy revolves..." seems to me to be a summary of the contents of the section. Perhaps it should read "this section presents the reactions of Yau, the New Yorker, and others to the article's claims that...", but in an article that claims to write about a particular set of related events forming a "controversy", it does not seem to me to be inappropriate to state what constituted the controversy, especially when this statement is drawn conservatively from the contents of the various sources. Paraphrasing is allowed; it is not original research to rephrase the statement "Mainly, yesterday, it rained unpleasantly" as "the speaker complained about yesterday's weather".
- "Yau's legal efforts..." POV phrasing for sure, but just as with the "alleged incidence" statement, you need to say this or else its absence will be significant in a misleading way.
Anything else needs to be dealt with as you said. On the whole, I don't think that the article ventures so far beyond the bare facts that cleaning it up would result in a significant reduction. Ryan Reich (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since some of the comments referenced by G-guy were written by me, let me explain why I wrote them. (I didn't write any of the other things, and I agree, for example, that the use of the word "plagiarism" is way off-base)

"paints an unflattering portrait of the 1982 Fields Medallist, Shing-Tung Yau". According to whom? Um, according to everyone. If you read through all the referenced content and anything that's been written about this, everything thinks this article was highly unflattering. Numerous Yau supporters even consider these blatant attacks, and his detractors consider it the truth, albeit negative. So when I wrote as a summary that it "paints an unflattering portrait", the thought that someone would even dispute this never crossed my mind. Please list a single person who thinks this is not unflattering.

"The controversy revolves around its emphasis on Yau's alleged stake in the Poincaré conjecture, its view that Yau was unfairly taking credit away from Perelman, and its depiction of Yau's supposed involvement in past controversies." Who's analysis of the controversy is this? Mine. This is a good summary of what the New Yorker article covered. It clearly paints Yau as the bad guy that wants to take away credit from Perelman (including a 'helpful' illustration of Yau grabbing the medal literally from Perelman's neck, to boot), alleges he has a big stake in the resolution of PC, and spends a great deal of time alleging/discussing Yau's involvement in prior priority disputes. If the controversy doesn't revolve around what was written in "Manifold Destiny", what on earth could it revolve around? --C S (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please do not discuss minutia changes to be made to the article here; it's not the proper place. Discuss them on the article's talk page. This discussion is strictly about keeping or deleting the whole article. VG ☎ 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. I might support a broader name for the article, though, as it spans more than the New Yorker article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect and Merge. There does not seem to signifigant secondary coverage of the New Yorker article itself. Most of the secondary coverage is related to the claim of defamation, which belongs in the article about the individual. Other secondary material barely relates to the articles itself and instead to the varous subjects. This material is good for the articles on Shing-Tung Yau and Grigori Perelman, but not notable enough to stand on its own. (Note: there are more google hits for the cookbook called "manifold destiny" than the article.) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: You raised a valid concern here, namely that the title of the article is too narrow for it's contents. But (as Geometry guy pointed out to me) this should also be discussed separately on the article's talk page; I've added a title change proposal there. Deleting the article seem unwarranted if the title is too narrow, since there's no other article on Wikipedia presenting the proof attribution controversy. Merging into Shing-Tung Yau is inappropriate; Yau was only a commentator on the attribution controversy. Merging into Grigori Perelman's bio would be marginally suitable, except this article is a lot longer than Perelman's bio and would derail that article by giving undue weight to a single topic in his bio. Also, a number of sections like "Erratum to Cao/Zhu article", which is germane to this article, would be entirely off-topic in Perelman's bio. So all the alternatives you bolded are IMHO inappropriate. VG ☎ 11:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean-up. -- Banjeboi 20:01, 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 : Snowball delete. I know it's somewhat irregular for the nominator to delete the article himself, but we have wasted enough time on it. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the average size of an F1 fuel tank[edit]

Unencyclopedic speculation on the size of Formula One fuel tanks. Deleted several times by me, but it may not actually meet the speedy deletion criteria - so, for the sake of process, delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, if possible speedily. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:G1 Patent Nonsense. It may LOOK like a semi-sensible calculation but it's actually complete drivel. It's the auto engineering equivalent of a million monkeys trying to write Shakespeare. Turn it into roadkill, please. MadScot (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"What is the average size of an F1 fuel tank?" Answer-- about 80 liters. Want to know how he got the answer? Neither do we. Mandsford (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I believe this is a case for WP:SNOW. Wikipedia is a not a place where an article, whose single purpose is to present a question followed by an original answer, is allowed. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. We have no speedy deletion criteria that applies to this article. It is pure own research, not verifiable, has no reliable sources, fails to assert any notability, and has no encyclopedic content. But still managed to escape all speedy deletion criteria. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it IS patent nonsense. If I 'calculate' the speed of an aircraft by combining random guesses and half understood engineering principles into a dubious 'calculation' its nonsense just as much as if I start making up words. This calculation isn't just wrong, its nonsensical by any reasonable engineering assessment. If someone wrote an article purporting to be a scientific analysis of why the earth is square, it'd be nonsense too. Not that it's going to help it survive anyway, but the faster this kind of junk vanishjes the better. Indeed, it's almost the definition of unsalvagably incoherent. If you removed the nonsense, you'd be left with the fact that Formula One cars have a fuel tank. that's surely CSD:G1? MadScot (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOR, to start. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTFORUM, among others. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:37, 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. seicer | talk | contribs 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basque people in the United Kingdom[edit]

No content, no references, no assertion of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recent AfD on 13 Sept 2008 available here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British‎. Please also note that although not in prose, there is content in the infobox on the article. The UK wikiproject is currently considering these articles under a merge/ rename proposal here, so this AfD is premature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 September 2008
Delete One of the most uninformative articles (including the infobox) that I've ever seen. How many? "A small minority"; Where do they live? "Throughout the United Kingdom". How long have Basques been in the UK? No, wait, let me guess... "A long, long time." Mandsford (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uninformative article. This tells nothing about Basque people except for the fact that there are people there. Tavix (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A3. No actual content, only templates, links, and rephrasing of the title. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried that but Jerry removed the template and suggested AfD instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Clearly non-notable article topic. I've searched Google books, news and scholar. If we keep this, what's next Burmese_people_in_Romania? I'm all for having a page for minorities in each country as long as there is something to say other than "an uncountably small minority exists". VG ☎ 23:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEANS. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:45, 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. seicer | talk | contribs 19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Wight Party[edit]

I have not been able to find any reliable, independent, and secondary sources on the Isle of Wight Party. As a result, I believe that the article breaks WP:N. I imagine that some people may be thinking “Any political party is notable”, and I understand that viewpoint. However, this party's activity began at the start of the campaigning season of a parliamentary constituency election in the Isle of Wight back in 2001, and I have found no evidence that the party has been active since. Also, the candidate fielded during that election by this party only gained 1.8% of the vote, and I have found no evidence that the candidate is in of himself notable. As a result, I do not agree that this party is notable. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks a lot like a single issue - single person party. And now he's bored with it too. For a party to be notable it has to have an organisation I think. MadScot (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MadScot. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the most part, I would say "Wight on!" but I'm confused about the suggestion that www.parliament.uk isn't a relable source. Still, the article itself doesn't indicate that this party was notable, other than for being a registered political party that was on the ballot. From what I understand, parties aren't inherently notable (i.e., open to debate) although there have been proposals [8] to set threshhold requirements for inherent notability. I don't think that, based on what is state in the article, this party would be notable. Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My apologies for not being clearer regarding my assertion that no reliable, independent, and secondary sources exist on the Isle of Wight Party. www.parliament.uk is a reliable website, which is independent, and secondary. However, the website is offering trivial coverage of the Isle of Wight Party, and according to WP:N, trivial coverage in one reliable, independent, and secondary source is not usually enough to make a subject notable. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if this ever was an active political party its time has passed. It certainly was a one-issue platform. The title of the party and the manifesto seemd to suggest a wider significance, but this never came to fruition. The 'fixed-link' debate on the Isle of Wight is probably notable enough in itself to merit an article - for a very thick-skinned editor to write - and in the unlikely event that this ever occurred the contents of the article under discussion would merit a place in that article. But it cannot stand alone. Naturenet | Talk 11:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from the little bits of bureaucratic cruft leftover from a single electoral bid, there's nothing on this party, apart from the Wikipedia article. One letter even suggests the founder isn't even a resident anymore, and I can't find current registration information in the Electoral Commission's database. If there is a tradition of occasional regionalist parties, that could be subject of an article. Avram (talk) 17:40, 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 Deleted as db-self. Other editors only added categories and a single minor formatting change. This qualifies as G7 as it meets the criteria of "the page's only substantial content was added by its author". -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas, Nebraska and Omaha Railway[edit]

There was never a railroad with this name. The reference given is the only one; Google Books would definitely give some hits if it were a real name. ([9][10]) There is more discussion at User talk:Freechild#Kansas, Nebraska and Omaha Railway; I think I've found which one the source is referring to, but it got nowhere near Omaha. NE2 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am the only author, I requested a ((db-self)) and it was denied, and here we are. As NE2 has shown on my talk page, I misinterpreted the original source, which is the only reference to this railroad on Google books. There are no substantive links on Google. • Freechild'sup? 19:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the speedy deletion tag because the author was not the only contributor, and no other speedy deletion criteria was applicable. If the railroad indeed never existed, then after two more delete supports this can be speedy closed as delete. So this isn't really "the hard way", it's just the right way. We can not bend and stretch the speedy deletion criteria to force it to fit where it does not. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:24, 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 delete as A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Shankle[edit]

A disk jockey at a country music radio station. Lacks sources and claims of notability. He seems to have been inducted into The Southern Legends Entertainment & Performing Arts Hall of Fame, but that article also is a bit suspect. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient notability. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A7. So tagged. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 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. Tiptoety ^talk 06:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mogdaan[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Warlords of Atlantis. No independent notability. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete no notability on its own. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. Unsuitable for merge per WP:NOT#PLOT - undue weight given to primary source description of fiction. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional creature. No coverage in secondary sources. Article is just plot summary and in-universe details. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One appearance hints at nonnotability. Pure plot summary and/or original research. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:09, 24 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 major independent notability was established; no reliable sources, especially that of a third-party; leaning towards original research in others seicer | talk | contribs 00:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Plantanos[edit]

This is an element of Kaiju Big Battel that does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the are also minor elements of it that do not establish independent notability:

TTN (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all no individual notability. Merge into charactor list. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as there is no independent notability. I don't think even merging is justified here as there aren't any worthwhile refs either. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I think the show makes a play at being nonsensical, so that might explain the article structure and prose. I was originally leery of supporting deletion for these articles, but the nom is correct. where there are sources they are cited to the makers of the performance piece and DVD only. Often there aren't sources. Borderline WP:OR claims are made, though with no sources, how can we really tell? Main article cites little coverage—I'm sure the main topic is notable and that lack of coverage will be rectified in time but I imagine that the sort of coverage the main topic wil receive won't trickle down to sub-topics. I'm not sure a merge is the way to go, either to a list or to the main article. Post deletion redirects or just redirects might also work. Protonk (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Not individually notable characters/events/etc. One brief "coming events" piece in NYT is insufficient to establish notability of a performance. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the RS and N points raised in the nom. Eusebeus (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Non-notable fictional elements. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:30, 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. The large majority of users here seem to be of the opinion that this has too much "game guide-like" content to justify the article. This closure has no prejudice against recreation iff a substantial section can be written dedicated to critical reception (real-life content) and the fictional content is trimmed considerably. If anyone is interested in Transwikiing this, please let me or another administrator know for the page content. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosses in The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:GAMECRUFT in the sense that articles about every boss in a series is inappropriate. The WP:CONCISEPLOT that is considered appropriate for Wikipedia can be found in The Legend of Zelda (series), and anything beyond that is simply a violation of WP:NOT. This article also fails WP:V and WP:N for a failure to find reliable third-party sources. Past nomination was closed as no consensus, with several arguments for keep suggesting that this article could be nominated later if improvement turned out to be impossible. Nearly a year later, it is safe to conclude that this article simply cannot meet our policies and guidelines at this time. Randomran (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has not improved substantially since previous AfD, and the problems still remain. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I doubt this article will ever get anywhere. Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 18:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but only due to lack of third-party references. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series. It seems like some of the content could be salvageable. MuZemike (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim & Merge into appropriate lists, like I said last time. Nothing seems to have improved and the articles remains to be gamecruft. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources do exist, and I am in the process of adding them. I can add them for the 8-bit games; for later games I would recommend consulting the Prima guides. *** Crotalus *** 00:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We need sources for the IMPORTANCE, not to verify the truthfulness of the information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reputable publishers thought it was worth publishing such material. Besides, notability is not a policy. WP:GAMECRUFT, cited by the nominator, isn't policy either. Adding reliable sources (and I have at least two separate third-party sources in hand, and know of more) is sufficient to meet the requirements of our verifiability policy. *** Crotalus *** 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A reputable publisher? It's the Official Nintendo Player's Guide, it's published by Nintendo themselves. Nintendo can't establish verifiability for their own product. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was referring specifically to the other guides, which were not official Nintendo products. There's at least one other I know of that could be added, in addition to the Walnum/Eddy and DeMaria books I have already cited. *** Crotalus *** 23:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, you don't seem to understand notability - guides cannot establish notability. That information about bosses appears in a guide that would logically discuss them is nothing special, so at no point does this establish any notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A Link To The Past, no good third party references. --Banime (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss a merge elsewhere. The content seems to overlap substantially. Both of them seem to be notable group articles. The question of merging needs a discussion by those who know the fiction, and can therefore be discussed best of the relevant talk pages. DGG (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would be surprised if these bosses received coverage from non-licensed publications (in other words, independent works from Nintendo). This is the trouble with WP:PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE information: a third party is unlikely to devote significant space to plot recapitulation so we aren't likely to see a magazine article on Gohma, for example. We are tempted to just say "well the game received some outside attention so it must be ok to cover every level of detail using primary material" but then we get into the same mess that the independent publishers tried to avoid. We end up with something that looks nothing like a summary of critical discussion and instead looks something like a list of bosses and weaknesses. This isn't an accident. It is a result of the type o coverage the material receives. This is a case in point of why something like WP:N exists. A redirect to The Legend of Zelda (series) is acceptable but a merger there would clutter up an otherwise good article. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the article. I have already cited two non-licensed third party publications that are reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 04:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article, so I assume you mean Walnum (1990) and Demaria (1990). I have no opinion on the former as I have never heard of it before. The latter is a licensed work. Prima works with game companies to use the images, maps and terminology they do. The material they publish is not intellectually independent from Nintendo. By intellectually independent I mean (and so does WP:N) no stake in the production and no control from the company. If a magazine decided to do a feature on Twilit Parasite, Diababa for whatever reason, that is independent coverage. They make that coverage decision for a reason and we follow. If no one who isn't being paid to write about it risks money and reputation to write something on the subject then Wikipedia shouldn't be the first. And even if Walnum (1990) is independent, it covers one boss. I assume that Ganon can probably be sourced, but that doesn't mean that any list which includes Ganon should be included. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Prima works are generally made in cooperation with the company. DeMaria's Nintendo Games Secrets (1990), as far as I can tell, is not. Unlike most of the modern strategy guides, it doesn't have any large full-color maps or licensed artwork, just a couple of B&W screenshots (which would easily constitute fair use). Furthermore, I reiterate again: WP:N is not policy and its application to areas of popular culture in this fashion is extremely controversial. *** Crotalus *** 05:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware both that Notability isn't a policy and that it's application to fiction articles is controversial. That's why I'm not just making an argument as an appeal to policy. I'm trying to present reasoning why we should take a course of action. If we accept that WP:N's application to fiction is controversial, that does not immediately lead us to the conclusion that no constraint on coverage of fictional subjects exists save WP:V. It leads us, at most, to the conclusion that we should hash out an agreeable compromise or (failing that) chart a course that makes sense for the project as a whole if we can't compromise on this article. So I provided reasons why wikiepdia should not have an article on a fictional subject which isn't covered by secondary sources. Also, since the controversy about WP:FICT has rendered that an essay with WP:N remaining a guideline, I submit that it is your job to show why this article is "a common sense objection" to that guideline. As far as the 1990 Prima book, I'm not convinced it was a secondary work completely independent from Nintendo (B/W photos in 1990 could have been a printing consideration). Nintendo is notoriously jealous of their intellectual property and a game guide is unlikely to present a defensible fair use exemption for printing photos and game material while nintendo is making money from tip hotlines and Nintendo Power. But, let's just assume that both Walnum (1990) and Demaria (1990) are independent. That means that bosses from Zelda I and II are covered. Where are the independent source covering the other subjects of the list? If they aren't independently notable, where is the independent work listing all of these bosses in one place showing that this is a subject of encyclopedic interest? For that matter, how do we get material that meets WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:PLOT (both part of WP:NOT, a policy, BTW) if out only sources are gameguides? Protonk (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, many secondary sources were provided in the last AfD discussion, and ample proof was given that the subject is notable, the sources just need to be added to the article. I apologize that I have not done this - I have no skill at such sections, and lately have been more focused on other wiki's. However, the sources exist.

If the article is determined to be merged, though, then the recurring bosses section should be moved to the enemies article, and the individual boss lists to the individual game articles. While I appreciate the drive to save info, the "just port it to a zelda wiki" is highly irritating - no one there has asked to receive it, and do you honestly think they don't already have better coverage of the info anyway? I know on the DMC wiki I've run, I've outright deleted articles ported to ours because they were completely redundant.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In cases like this, comprised primarily of description of fiction, discussion of WP:N is a wearisome distraction from WP:NOT. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will try to search for some reliable sources in order to salvage this article, but in this article's current state, I would probably recommend a merge. Artichoker[talk] 16:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am currently in the process of majorly cleaning up and referencing this article. This article will be improved, and I will help as much as I possible can, so I urge it to be kept. I have already started adding some refs [11][12]. Artichoker[talk] 17:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The people who want to keep it seem to miss the point that the ref problem is no refs establishing notability or importance, not a lack of refs establishing that the article's content is true or not. I want to see refs establishing notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To echo A Link to the Past's concerns, that's exactly it. We can source the facts to the game itself, let alone game guides and instruction manuals. But what WP:N requires is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. We need some objective third-party coverage that can actually offer some critical detail about this, rather than just verifying its existence and telling people to play the game themselves if they want to see it. Randomran (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gamecruft and trivia at best. Move to a Legend of Zelda wiki if necessary. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article as encyclopedic, but delete this discussion as AfDcruft. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- wat. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think user meant to claim that WP:ITSNOTABLE. MuZemike (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What confused me was the 'AfDcruft' part. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is trivia and game guide material. The bosses have no real world importance, so listing them is unnecessary. The topic itself has no chance of being reformatted to assert encyclopedic value, so this does not need to exist. TTN (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of enemies presented in game guide form. It has no chance of improving. The Prince (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can people please stop pulling out the "gameguide" moniker for stuff that has absolutely no guiding whatsoever within it? Gamecruft could be a plausible objection - Gameguide is not. The editors for the article have gone out of our way to remove any shred of "guide"-ness.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The prose of the list is presented as game guide, so whether you like it or not it's game guide. The Prince (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...no, it's not. It's presented as plot summary. Again, there are problems with the article, such as PLOT and cruft, that need to be worked on. GUIDE is not one of them. And, to think of it, if the article's problem was simply prose as you suggest, wouldn't that call for a copyedit, not delete? At what point did people start arguing that simply not feeling like tidying an article up was appropriate cause for immediate deletion?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If it a PLOT summary, then it fails WP:NOT#PLOT, so in either case, the article is full of WP:FAIL. If you want to argue about the validity of using WP:GAMEGUIDE as a reason for deletion under WP:NOT, I suggest either voicing your grievances to the video games WikiProject or initiating a Request for comment on policy/guidelines. Disagreeing with a community-accepted guideline goes nowhere in an AfD discussion. MuZemike (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And apparently, still no one is reading what I posted: That this article is not at all gameguide, so if there is a valid reason to delete the article, this isn't it. Yes, as of right now, too much of the article is plot, and much more real-world info needs to be added. However, that is an entirely separate problem, and it's difficult to see so many prolific editors so committed to casting delete votes without any of the "explain how this policy actually applies" or "does this policy call for deletion".Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And as you pointed out, too much of the article is plot. If it was just a section or a subsection, then I can see keeping and cleaning up. However, the fact that nearly all of the article is like this suggests if anything that the article needs a complete overhaul/rewrite with verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability if it is to be redone, (I'm only talking about the WP:NOT problems; everyone else has driven the notability problems into the ground already.) which is what deletion accomplishes efficiently. MuZemike (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — article is entirely superfluous plot summary and game guide content. No notability asserted in the form of critical coverage by sources independent of the topic. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should read User:KrytenKoro's first comment above. It states that this article is specifically not gameguide, and that makes perfect sense. Him, I, and many other editors have strived to keep this article devoid of any gameguide material. Either you have not read the article, or you confuse the term with gamecruft, which is entirely different. Gamecruft could be an accurate accusation, however, this article contains no text explaining how to beat a boss or guide you through the game. Artichoker[talk] 20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article has been thoroughly revived since nomination. The reception section, for example, includes non-plot summary and non game guide content and therefore demonstrates critical coverage in several sources independent of the topic, which means it asserts notability. The "rationales" for deletion thus seem somewhat dishonest in lieu of the coverage of these characters and their rankings on top lists. --209.247.22.86 (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I didn't even notice the reception section, which indeed does provide critical coverage of this topic and therefore should help establish its notability. I do recommend this article be kept. Artichoker[talk] 20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I point those active in this discussion to another discussion I have brought up a while ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Strategy guides, as it has been noted that the vast majority of sources come from either the video games themselves or from strategy guides. MuZemike (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What can be said more than that "Wikipedia is not a game manual"? ~~This information has real world context.~~ -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't quite understand your reasons for deleting. You say that the information has real world context; wouldn't that be criterion for keeping the article rather than deleting it? Artichoker[talk] 22:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Okay, everyone trying to imply that my argument is that the article has no reason to be deleted? Stuff like Magioladitis' comment above is what you need to look at. This is the stuff I've been talking about - NOT that the article is even being suggested as being deleted, but that so many of the arguments for doing so are completely fallacious, flawed, or even against the guidelines for how deletion rationale should be communicated. Not only is the article not in any way "gameguide", but there hasn't even been ANY display of how the article could be considered such.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Game guide material is anything only important within the context of the games. Providing it to the reader here does not help them understand the main game or series in any way. This includes weapons, skill, generic enemies, bosses with no recurring role in the plot, ect. This article does not establish any sort of importance (that reception section is way too light to matter), so it is just a list of minor game elements with no importance. TTN (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, you made the common mistake of confusing gameguide with gamecruft; two separate entities. Gameguide details how to accomplish something in a game (an example for this article would be showing how to defeat a boss, which is not mentioned at all in the text). Gamecruft, is more of a general term that includes gameguide and includes what you are talking about. So in conclusion, there is no gameguide material in this article. P.S. Although the reception section may be considered "light", it certainly matters, and gives this article real-world coverage and provides some notability. Artichoker[talk] 23:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will try expanding it when I get a chance as well. Artichoker[talk] 23:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you are also arguing that anything that is not an explicit strategy guide for a game shouldn't be deleted. I think that a mix of game specific information on enemies and plot elements fails WP:PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE, even if the whole article is not explicitly either a gameguide or a plot summary. However, even if it doesn't, the article doesn't meet WP:N as noted above. It is six in one hand, a half dozen in the other. Protonk (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I was simply stating the difference between the terms, I am not arguing that it shouldn't be deleted because it doesn't have any gameguide material (after all, it still does contain gamecruft) or else I would have explicitly stated that in my comments. I am simply saying there is no gameguide, nothing more. Please do not put words in my mouth. Artichoker[talk] 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not, that's why I started the sentence with "I think...". If you are looking for agreement that WP:PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE are being thrown around more than their wording might support, you will find it. I agree. I think that some of the delete votes should have relfected a real look at the article and noted that it had gameguide and plot material but that it wasn't entirely plot summary or gameguide. However, I don't consider a failure to do so fallacious. Nor do I consider an article like this, where removal of PLOT/GUIDE content would leave very, very little, salvageable. I also assume that the participants have a good idea of what community consensus is about N/PLOT/GUIDE before leaving their opinions here. Protonk (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Correction :) This information has no' real world context. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a lie, given the reception section and post below. --209.247.22.86 (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For additional non-plot, non-game guide information, see such sources as this one that even mentions one of the characters on this list prominently and in a critical fashion as the character also appears in a cartoon, or are we arguing it's cartoon-guide, too? Zelda characters have also been made into toys. "Game"guide cannot be applied to something that concerns games, cartoons, and toys. In any event, I suggest using such sources to start a section on Other Appearances or Appearance in Other Media, etc. of these characters that indicates their undeniably notable influence and significance in a variety of media. Also, the reception section can be expanded by quoting some of the comments provided by the non-game guides used to cite that section.--209.247.22.86 (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's WP:GAMECRUFT, it certainly isn't a WP:CONCISEPLOT, which would be difficult to wring out considering the vast majority are non-entities no more worthy of note than the bosses of Alex Kidd in Shinobi World or any other game. Reception information boils down to a throwaway quote about the bosses in general and information on Ganon, which is hardly surprising since he is the series' longstanding antagonist and has his own article because of it. I wouldn't support a merge to the enemies article either since it looks in no better state. Spun-out articles are great when secondary sources support them with significant coverage, and they therefore pass WP:N, but in this case nothing remotely convincing has been presented or is evident in the links in the previous AFD. Someone another 00:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does anyone want to take a look at the reception section now? How critical coverage does it take? Artichoker[talk] 01:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the expanded first sentence, which now states that it's about two bosses out of umpteen, it's all about Ganon, who is a single aspect of the article and is already covered elsewhere. Someone another 02:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GET RID OF IT. This Gamecruft is the type of stuff belongs in a Wikia [13], which I think there is. If there is, DELETE and TRANSWIKI it to save the information. ZeroGiga (talk) 03:37, 25 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. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dotmusic[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, no substantial coverage from reliable third-party sources. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 17:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks citations from reliable sources and that leads me to believe that it doesn't comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following research, I've referenced six significant articles in the UK press over the site's life, which I believe meet the concerns relating to WP:CITE and WP:RS, hence WP:V. Notability should also be demonstrated. CJPargeter (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having reviewed the work done by the above user, I think the relevant criteria are now met. Ac@osr (talk) 16:38, 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. Cirt (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Beta Chapter[edit]

Per Wikipedia's guidelines on notability of organizations, individual chapters of organizations should not have seperate articles. Previous articles on chapters of fraternities including a Wikiproject have all been deleted. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider for individual chapters. --Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I am concerned, all fraternities are non-notable, and chapters of them are even less notable. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of refereces Reywas92 ^Talk 20:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:56, 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 redirect to Companies law. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Types of business units[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Types of business units

The subject duplicates Companies law. Probably the Pakistani editors (that's where original author comes from) can salvage the stub into a national business law article? NVO (talk) 00:45, 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, TravellingCari 17:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to companies law or a similar page on types of companies. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to companies law. Article is duplicative and contains unsourced opinion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:35, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harrison[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Longer than the previous version and the claims to lordship have been toned down. But it is still an autobio so again I ask, is he notable?

I would also like to see evidence that he has ever entered the House of Lords. The links given seem to relate to Lyndon Henry Arthur Harrison whose peerage was, by a co-incidence, created in 1999 the same year as Stephen Harrison allegedly inherited his title. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's some very suspicious parts to that bio. Where a date might be verifiable, it's missing or vague. Key company names are missing - WHICH regional airline? I'm having great difficulty believing any European Regional was flying B767 on ETOPS, or indeed at all. And according to KLM's own [history page] - "July 1995 : KLM introduced Boeing 767-300ER to service." And the photo ic captioned "...in uniform of Captain" but the textbox give LCmdr as rank which is TWO rungs below Captain. I have real doubts that an actual LCmdr would pose for a picture in the wrong uniform. I'm thinking there's something very fishy about the whole bio. MadScot (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to say delete here, looks hoaxy. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One editor has added comments on the talk page for this AfD. He has some significant information to add, which seems to weigh quite heavily against the article. I don't feel I should move the comments, though. MadScot (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Delete] There's something fishy here. There is no Stephen Lord Harrison who served either before, during or after the Falklands conflict in a Sea Harrier squadron and no-one by that name shows in the Navy List of active or retired between 1982 and the present. The KLM uniform is suspect - the cap and jacket show a RN pilots wings and, in one of the links, he is shown in flying overalls wearing Joint Force Harrier patches - JHF did not exist until some four years or so ago. The four Sea Harriers pictured are FA2 and yet, during the Falklands war we flew FRS1. The caption to the photgraph is odd; Colin Thornhill is an Air Engineer and would hardly be flying and Carlie 'Canton' is incorrectly spelled. Other links are spurious and his claim to a Mirage kill on 1st Mar 82 has been formally attributed to Flt Lt Paul Barton of 899 NAS - his other claim is also attributed to another pilot. The title belongs to a Laour Peer Lyndon Harrison. This entry should be deleted in total. -- Lancelot66 (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC) (Copied from the talk page. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Evidently a complete Walt job. Plutonium27 (talk) 13:16, 24 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 per the consensus to do so. I've ignored the only two delete !votes because of the presumption that this article should be speedied (speedy is not applicable here, and this is specifically why I've ignored it).

The deletion nomination only mentions two concerns; BLP1E and Coatrack and I will oblige EconomicsGuy in breaking down my rationale for closing as keep.

The article has significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion. Many of the editors involved in the discussion have either argued against the application of one event, or expanded the article to show how it does not apply, coupled with proper sourcing. Likewise, coatrack is not a reason to delete in itself (If there are issues with the content, then we fix them with NPOV editing.).There were no other concerns (other than "its problematic"), and the remainder of the !votes agree that the subject of the article is notable. So I see no reason to wait for an admin to close this debate, as I do not think there is sufficient reason to delete at this time. (NAC) Synergy 02:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Muthee[edit]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. The witch-hunt claims are extremely problematic per WP:BLP, and there's only a single reliable source (The Daily Mail) which is based on a claim that Muthee appeared at Sarah Palin's church. Kelly ^hi! 16:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis is pretty much a speedy in disguise. Hobartimus (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Speedy delete'~~ Coatrack and thinly disguised BLP violation. This really ought to be speedied because this totally crosses the line. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to neutral I've asked the arbitrators for clarification and though I still don't believe this passes BLP the opposition to that point of view is now so massive that I withdraw my !vote. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pretty much the definition of a coatrack article. Sashaman (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to very weak keep as the article has been improved. Still very coatrackish. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save This guy shows up in hundreds of news stories. Google his name and it shows up 9,000 times, and this number is rapidly growing. Just because his existence is an embarassment to people does not make this a coatrack article. The Wikipedia entry on Jerimiah Wright is quite lengthy and I don't see you guys trying to stop that story. Kryzadmz (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, please see WP:WAX which explains why making reference to another poor article isn't considered a valid argument here. Secondly, if you feel that an article should be deleted, WP:DPR explains how. Thirdly, you might want to change your talk link as I've explained on your talk page. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; this guys' been on the news on and off for a decade or so, and has had some full-length biopics in mainstream media sources. His story's reasonably well-known in a sub-section of the U.S. evangelical community that believes in the idea of spiritual warfare, and he seems to be prominently featured in a number of that community's materials. The current article doesn't reflect any of that (it's all Palin-related sources), but that's a reason to improve the article. I've made a start at doing so, based mainly on this 1999 Christian Science Monitor article. I don't think the witch-hunt claims raise BLP problems, since it's not as if he's being accused of witch-hunting by other people and disagreeing with it; he himself supports hunting witches, which is his main theological position and claim to fame. --Delirium (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Delirium. Article seems balanced and not WP:COATRACK; it only mentions Palin in one short NPOV sentence sourced from two mainstream media sources. Inevitably the mainstream sources focus on his ties with Palin, so the real question is: should be this be moved to wikinews? His bio is still pretty sketchy. VG ☎ 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be okay with merging it in somewhere, but there doesn't currently seem to be a good place for it. If spiritual warfare had a section or sub-article detailing some of the more prominent modern-day claims, it'd fit well there. --Delirium (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article seems balanced and not WP:COATRACK You're kidding, right? The creator of this article rushed to the Sarah Palin talk page immediately afterwards to push this crap. That was the only purpose with this article. I'm taking this straight to DRV if this is kept. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that it was created for non-good-faith reasons doesn't imply that a different article shouldn't appear at the same title (it's been substantially rewritten since the initial contribution, with almost all the Palin material removed). --Delirium (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like I said I'm taking this to DRV if this is not deleted so none of that matters. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Has been in the news over the course of a decade for multiple events, so no claim of WP:BLP1E holds water. We have multiple reliable sources talking about the man. That the more recent coverage has been about possible connections to Palin doesn't alter that situation. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep COATRACK is not a wikipedia policy and not a valid reason to delete (merely an essay). Notability appears to have been established in the news. Suspect bad faith nom by Kelly who has been previously warned for his POV edits regarding Sarah Palin. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ever heard of WP:BLP? Also, comment on content, not the nominator. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment on the content? Didn't you just say above "The creator of this article rushed to the Sarah Palin talk page immediately afterwards to push this crap. That was the only purpose with this article"? From what I see of this page, it is factual, notable, and well sourced. The page seems mostly about the guy himself. not Sarah Palin. Plus this content works much better here than on the tightly controlled Sarah Palin page. COATRACK is therefore an invalid argument.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a little while at least. It's only two days old, so let's give it more time and see if anything develops. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been bold! What do you guys think of it now? :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: delete arguments seem irrelevant, focusing on WP:BLP-compliance, WP:COATRACK etc., which are mere WP:PROBLEMS that have no bearing on the notability of the article's subject. The latter is not in question, given the reams of significant coverage of this individual availabe through a cursory Google News search. Stub, balance, protect if you must, but do not be so hysterical as to delete. the skomorokh 14:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Skomorokh; a Google News search clearly demonstrates the notability of the subject. --Saforrest (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skomorokh. -- Banjeboi 20:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I honestly don't see the "only one event" this person is notable for. And I don't see any BLP issues that would require deletion in order to fix the supposed problems. --Pixelface (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I've been working on it. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep don't know what it looked like before, but looks great now!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at FangedFaerie's work [14] (all intervening edits by this editor), I certainly understand why this article was nominated for deletion. I think this is a good rescue by him, comparable to my rescue [15] of Otis Moss III during its AFD. The conclusion now seems obvious - the problem now will be keeping inappropriate coatracking out of the article. I wish I had more faith in our editors about this... GRBerry 20:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closer Per the response I got from the arbitrators on my request for clarification today I ask that the closing administrator explain how he/she has applied the appropriate ruling in the Footnoted quotes ruling which I understand from the arbitrators' response is the relevant ruling. During this AfD we have now had two attempts to reinclude disputed material that was removed on BLP grounds so I believe this deserves more than a simple counting of votes. Thanks, EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is noteworthy. Coatrack issues can be dealt with in other ways.--scuro (talk) 02:17, 24 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 film that has no reliable sources. This AfD is gettin' spa'ed. seicer | talk | contribs 19:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUPERPOWER the Movie[edit]

This movie doesn't seem to satisfy our notability requirements. Additionally, the article contains no external sources or links to external media coverage. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Our specific guidelines regarding notability in films can be found here: Wikipedia:Notability_(films). " A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although Google is not the end-all-be-all of notability tests, if an American movie gets only 2 results (the official website and the page we are discussing here) that is a pretty strong indicator that it is not notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although I wasn't able to find much relevant sources, its home page~~(Not sure if official or unofficial)~~ tells us that it won a bunch of nominations for awards. I'm not sure if its reliable, so I'll let someone else decide. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the awards and film festivals do not seem to have received significant coverage by independent sources either. Yes, that website is official. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not cite reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a proper argument for deletion.... only for tagging for sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it may also be known simply as "Superpower", I tried Googling Superpower combined with "Christy Johnson" (the narrator) and "Barbara-Anne Steegmuller" (the director) and got 12 and 6 hits respectively. The text reads like a combination of advertising for the film and a political tract, which is unsurprising given that it is largely lifted from the film's own publicity material. As for the awards; awards from minor film festivals are ten a penny, and there's no indication that these are important or significant awards. The official website shows the director receiving an award on a small corner of a stage which looks like it's going to be used by the band later - not exactly the Oscars. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone is a Christy Johnson fan... and the Christy johnson article was deleted last week for failing notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, as this film is only just now making the festival rounds. If or when notability can be established through WP:RS, bring it back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Michel Chossudovsky does not have an "a" in his name. The French spell it as Michel. Please check before making an edit.

ResearchesResearches (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Superpower" is not just on the festival circuit. It is being used in two colleges and one university as a teaching tool. It is also being used as the basis of a major textbook that is being written, with the DVD to be enclosed. Negotiations are underway to consider it for a mini series or a TV movie.

ResearchesResearches (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete "Superpower" has been rewritten. Thank you for your suggestions. It should no longer seem like an advertisement. This site is for information about a film that presents historical documentation that is often difficult to find and connect the dots when studying foreign policy. "Superpower" was thoroughly researched and can be useful for college studies and reference.

ResearchesResearches (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I just heard an interview with the person Robert Lock, who runs the August film show, on a major radio station...I added the link to his show. From what I heard on the radio interview this sounds like an important award winning film that speaks truth to power. I can't imagine anything more important in documentary film making. Anti-Television (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Anti-TelevisionAnti-Television (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The picture on the home page looks fine. It's not even on the wiki site. 18:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Purplygrotto —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplygrotto (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was redirected to Steven Dillon. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Solaris Effect[edit]

non notable neologism that has been coined by one professor and is according to Google Scholar only used by this professor and no one else. The article also claims that the Solaris Effect is just an expansion of what Ingmar Bergman or James Monaco said - all these two said was that Tarkovsky had a lot of influence (indeed he had), but this does not make this neologism more notable. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BlueSalo is correct that Bergmann and Monaco did not use the expression (as far as I am aware of). That was not for notability, but historic context. EricDiesel (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A neologism used by only one person. Schuym1 (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question' - how can you call it a "non-notable" neologism when the work that coined it is an academic work published by a serious academic press? Writing a book about your neologism and getting UT Press to publish a book about your neologism kinda makes it notable, not so? Guettarda (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the book is not about the neologism, but about the influence of Tarkovsky on contemporary cinema. Without having read the book, but just looking at book description and the content at Google Books, it looks to me that the word Solaris effect is just a catchy book title, and not even a neologism that describes a concept. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, Strong Not a neologism nor a one user expression. I regularly used the expression "The Solaris Effect" at my Stanford University lectures (given to audiences of about 500 people every week) from 1984 to 1992, after first hearing it a film lecture at UCLA back in the 1970's. (I actually also used it to talk about film funding and censorship, in addition to film language.) The Steven Dillon's 2006 book title is completley independent of my use over those eight years. I had never heard of him before someone called me up and said to check the title out. So both mine and Dillon's uses likely came from some coinage back in the 1970's. EricDiesel (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does media cite you using it? Otherwise it's WP:ILIKEIT. VG ☎ 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Was anyone there? I was soundly and publicly chewed out for “mistranslating” the expression “the Solaris effect”, following my lecture of the same title, and screening, at Stanford U. (I had never seen it in print at the time.) The complaining person, a visiting scholar from the Soviet Bloc in computer science, asserted that the expression was used in cybernetics circles in the Soviet Bloc to refer to some aspect of “memory” and “mental representation”, and arose from discussions related to Lem’s freak out over Tarkovsky’s interpretation of the book. My talk, on the other hand, was mostly about funding and censorship, only secondarily about film language, and had nothing to do with memory and representation. The complaining scholar went on to give a detailed secondary “lecture” on Lem’s reaction to Tarkovsky, then went on to talk about fax machines and something about gay rights in the Soviet Union and the impact on Gorbachev. To trigger memory, this was in the lobby of Cubberley Hall after the screening, and he was standing next to another Russian in CS named “Andrei” who had red hair and freckles and was a regular at all the Russian screenings. (Admittedly, my recollection might be like Kelvin recalling his wife’s dress.) The gay rights and fax machine comment should help place the year. Was anyone who is reading this at that talk, and if so, do you have a copy of my lecture handout with the title? EricDiesel (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not cite accessible, reliable sources and as such I am unable to verify that this term is used. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
: See Google Books for a limited preview of the book in question. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
: Unacceptable argument. Many if not most math articles cite books that are not freely available on the net; the same goes for many other fields. Wikipedia is not "the encyclopedia of stuff freely available online". VG ☎ 00:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::That is a primary source; it does not satisfy WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::: Primary sources can be cited; a primary source is not automatically unreliable as you imply. Citing primary sources is commonly done for most features of software, book/movie plots etc. WP:RS is a guideline and uses "should" not "must" in Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. My best guess here is that author is authoritative because he is a critic and film historian, and that book has a reliable publication process being published by University of Texas Press, so the only missing adjective here is "third-party". I can live with that in this context. VG ☎ 00:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Andrei Tarkovsky. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECTED to author Steven Dillon, with link to Solaris, per above comments, until more written sources of uses of expression, prior to the book or following it, are acquired. EricDiesel (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
: Exactly what I was going to suggest (keep as redirect if anyone's counting). VG ☎ 00:27, 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. Wikipedia is not a list or directory. I do echo DGG's comments here though; if properly restarted as an article about notable engineering schools, or if the list can be otherwise expanded to include non-U.S. facilities, it may be salvageable. seicer | talk | contribs 19:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of civil engineering schools[edit]

Pretty much every general university grants civil engineering degrees, so it seems pointless to list them all. Could be salvaged if it were restricted to those institutions which are highly ranked (like Law school rankings in the United States), but probably best just to delete and start over. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment There are a number of lists like this in various subjects, sometimes embedded in articles. I am not at all sure what to do about them. It does seem like a directory, but on the other hand such lists are surprisingly difficult to find on the web. Online programs, individual programs, sure. Non-advertising comprehensive lists, no. Not even the American Society for Civil Engineers has a list that I could find--but they link eventually to a search site at [ABET which would be the proper US external link for engineering etc. articles in general. Not all subjects are covered, and for some disciplines it's much less obvious, if not impossible. some articles here have screened for quality by limiting to PhD granting programs, but it would seem more useful if we are going to list them to list those and the lower level ones in separate sections. This would be an exception to general policy--it seems of all people to do this sort of list, we are the best staffed. Bu it can be seen as an almanac function, not a directory, and WP does cover such many of the sort of things one finds in almanacs. I'd leave this, pending discussion. Of course, it would be most useful with links to the university or college of engineering (or whatever) article, and a reference to the program, though one could of course get there eventually from the links in the university or college article. Maybe we should be useful, when we're needed. DGG (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for one thing this violates WP:LC points 3 and 8, and additionally, the list only includes North American schools. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that last point at least is a reason for expansion, not deletion. I should have mentioned it. If expanded that way, it will collect scattered information no current place on the web or to my knowledge elsewhere provides. DGG (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That last point seems very like WP:EFFORT as arguments go. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, its not the work put in already, but the possibilities. While, it's better than anywhere else but it still needs further work; as you said above, it's incomplete & will be more valuable if properly expanded. DGG (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (slightly weak, as there is some justification for an exception to general policy.) There is no doubt that directories are useful, but I am leery of using apparent unavailability of another resource as a basis for inclusion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator -- a large enough proportions of universities offer civil engineering, that there seems to be little point in having a list of civil engineering schools, it will have too much overlap with the list of universities in general. --SJK (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not a directory. We66er (talk) 05:23, 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. Cirt (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The McLean Group[edit]

WP:NN 85-person company. Article has been recreated by egins (talk · contribs) who appears to be the company's marketing director. The previous version of this article (deleted in June) was a cut and paste (promotional) copy of the company's web site. While the company seems to have numerous mentions in puffy local business journals, doesn't seem to have extensive coverage in WP:Reliable sources. Fails WP:Corp Toddst1 (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not cite reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borders advertising. Not notable even if you could verify what's written in the article. There's only one short note from The Washington Post (in pdf) on their web site, but it's about "Columbia group". Who knows if they've changed their name or what, but it's too obscure to verify. VG ☎ 00:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:01, 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. seicer | talk | contribs 19:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable fashion models[edit]

After trying twice to add a "notable models" section to the model article (1, 2), the user simply created this article with his list and later proposed a merge with the aforementioned article after somebody proposed its deletion. Merging is not an option as it's been decided a long time ago to remove lists of notable models from this article as it created lots of problems and edit wars (everybody and his brother has his own conception of "notability", especially when it comes to models). Fashion models already have enough categories not to need an article on top of it.
Not to mention that this article is a total OR and pretty inaccurate at that as only the first five in the list actually did any serious fashion modeling. Thiste (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, I note that by definition any model with a bio here is notable and any non-notable won't have a bio. Therefore if someone wanted such a list, wouldn't a category work better? MadScot (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it illustrates Wikipedia's shortcomings when it comes to locating a category. For whatever reason, my favorite website has a useless search engine when it comes to finding those items where we can rightfully say "A category is better". Why this is, I don't know. It's as if you type in the word "category" and it comes back, "Category? I don't know no stinkin' category!" Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a category is appropriate. Also seems to be a POV fork out of the model article. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tendentious and unnecessary fork. Note that Supermodel also eschews list format while dropping even more names than this list. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I'll give you the list in the male section of the article, but other than that every name/list there is based on solid facts and not the vague idea of "notoriety". And I can tell you that's a big improvement from what the article has looked in the past. Thiste (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:01, 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. Non-notable before, non-notable today. No reliable sources. seicer | talk | contribs 19:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SwiftIRC[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)).

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/SwiftSwitch

This article has been deleted no less than four times previously. and still lacks a single human-generated WP:RS to demonstrate notability. That said, it was deleted long enough ago that a brief stay of execution/not using the criterion for speedy deletion may be warranted, although I doubt it. Tagged with prod, but it was removed by the author per Talk:SwiftIRC - None of the previous arguments are really dealt with there, though. MrZaius^talk 14:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Per the comment below, note that RusNet, SlashNET, Coldfront & GameSurge meet the same criterion for deletion described above, with the exception of the previous deletions. The others seem to have Google News hits and the like that can be used to form a stronger case for note, and Rizon already is partially sourced. Any objections to widening this AfD to cover Coldfront and GameSurge? MrZaius^talk 16:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, apologies if this does not follow the general guidelines for AfDs but here it goes:

My general opinion is Keep due to the fact that comparing to the other IRC networks listed on Wikipedia this article has sufficient amount of references to be kept. I am biased in this specific case due to the fact I'm an active member of the SwiftIRC community. None the less deleting this article should also result in that all the other IRC networks listed on Wikipedia should be deleted.

Quakenet, Undernet, Coldfront and GameSurge does not have any human-generated references worth mentioning and DALnet, EFnet, Rizon and SlashNET lacks references all together. The others not mention does have some proper references however they are still lacking.

SwiftIRC is comparable to the Coldfront network however Coldfront is a lot smaller and does not have sufficient references but still the article is not deleted.

As for the issue with not having any human-generated sources, since SwiftIRC is not very mainstream it is rather hard to find any notable, and reliable sources. JaGeX, creators of RuneScape, are not very keen on Fan sites/networks/Communities, unlike most other MMORPG creators. Another factor in this is that most of the userbase(SwiftIRC's and RuneScape's) is in their early teens and does not posses wits nor knowledge to publish anything that could be regarded as a notable source. Pathyyy (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC) — Pathyyy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists isn't a valid argument here. The fact that it is "hard to find any notable, and reliable sources" is reason enough for deletion. That said, at least two of those networks DO have at least one third party WP:RS - Combined with the bot-generated content, that's borderline-adequate to demonstrate NOTE. That's the case for Rizon, at the very least. WP:RS surely could be found for at least half of the networks mentioned above - Any others should be popped off right as well. MrZaius^talk 15:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would count as a reliable source? There are thousands of references to SwiftIRC on a simple google search, most of which are from users who have channels on the network - How can anything else be more reliable than that? So what you're saying is I just need to get something like ircnews/ircjunkie to make a report on SwiftIRC to get it listed? That seems incredibly pointless. (Also regarding Rizon - I see no WP:RS on their page - the only link that goes to a site other than rizon.net contains no reference to 'Rizon'). KatlynSwift (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC) — KatlynSwift (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

News/press reports are the primary RS of choice, yes. This is hardly pointless, and is the primary means of keeping fancruft & corporate spam off the wiki. MrZaius^talk 16:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about being listed in mIRC's servers.ini file - The majority of the networks listed above, including SwiftIRC, are listed in it... I'd imagine mIRC must be at least somewhat of a reliable source? To be listed in the servers.ini your network has to be of at least some notability. KatlynSwift (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be wrong, according to my reading of WP:RS. There are probably a dozen networks enabled by default in it, xchat, and other popular clients. They don't universally warrant coverage. MrZaius^talk 16:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't universally warrant coverage. - Could you please write so those of us who doesn't have a college degree in English can understand it as well. Please note that I consider myself quite fluent in English but I still don't understand what you try to say. Please understand that you do not have to use the most fancy terms there is to prove your point. Pathyyy (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never occurred to me that the above was anything but clear and simple - All I said was that there were many more networks listed in the default configs for many IRC clients than those few networks covered in the Wikipedia. It takes more than a hostname, a port number, or a wc of a /who * command to meet the Wikipedia:Reliable source guideline. MrZaius^talk 16:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not cite reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Also can't see this network meeting WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle. Anybody objecting to the presence of articles on other non-notable IRC nets should go ahead and mark them for deletion instead of arguing to keep this one. VG ☎ 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) and salt — recreation of deleted material tops the list of problems; other problems include lack of verifiable, third-party sources establishing any notability, article ownership problems, and potential conflict of interest issues. MuZemike (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last deletion was long enough ago that prod seemed a reasonable step down from using CSD to allow for new sources to be found, but I haven't found any. Nom certainly wouldn't object if that's what happened. Can always break the others off into a new AfD - Noone's picking up on the proposal to pop them off via this one. MrZaius^talk 02:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasoning against it, but the fact remains that the problems apparently remain from the first time the article was deleted. It would be a very strong delete if anything else; however, given the history of this article, I feel that that whomever should want to do an article on this again should bring it to an admin before creating it, as the logs show apparent issues with abiding by many of Wikipedia's basic policies and guidelines. MuZemike (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - Just wanted to slow things down initially to make sure there weren't sources out there. Didn't work out that way, though, unfortunately. Speedy would have been fine, in retrospect. MrZaius^talk 08:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:02, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Sokolov[edit]

This person does not meet any of wikipedia's notability requirements. Nrswanson (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any independent searches to establish notability, or even to verify the data in the article. The name "Denis Sokolov" is fairly common in Russia so GoogleNews, especially in Russian, produces quite a few hits[16]. After looking through quite a few of them, I could not find any that actually mention the subject of this article (there are many about a hockey player from Yaroslavl, about a businessman in timber industry, etc but not about the blogger/musical producer). Nsk92 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not cite reliable sources (ruwiki is unfortunately not a reliable source) and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no RS -- Y not? 19:34, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian Exclusive Economic Zone[edit]

Slovenia has never proclaimed any exclusive economic zone. Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least re-name The article states "When Croatia proclaimed its own EEZ in 2006, Slovenia emphasised its own continued maintenance of territorial rights to access the open sea." So, apparently this doesn't exist and never has but might someday. Current title is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not cite reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. This article cite reliable sources --->GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION OFFICE. It says: "On 22 October 2005 Slovenia declared a Protective Ecological Zone and the Continental Shelf of the Republic of Slovenia. On 21 February 2006 the country also formally notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Slovenia thus formalised its declaration of a protective ecological zone in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea." I suggest the name Protective Ecological Zone and the Continental Shelf of Slovenia--Suradnik13 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment An ecological preserve and an exclusive economic zone are not the same thing at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep. This smells like censorship. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this censorship? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article title seems a poor translation (a country part of EU claims an exclusive economic zone?!), but the content immediately jumps to the conflict with Croatia, so it strikes me as just WP:POV pushing. If there is a Protective Ecological Zone and the Continental Shelf of the Republic of Slovenia, then someone can write a proper article about it. There's nothing salvageable in this one. VG ☎ 01:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:03, 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 speedy keep as the OTRS ticket in question has nothing to do with this and is being improperly cited as a reason to delete these articles. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of CW affiliates[edit]

Copyright violation per OTRS ticket #2008091610055854. Also nominating:

for same reason.

ViperSnake151 12:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also nominate:

Comment Shouldn't OTRS issues be handled elsewhere ? Equendil Talk 13:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could be wrong, but I believe the copyright claim is related to only one of the data columns in these tables. If so, these lists should be restructured to eliminate references to that particular column of data, so that the articles can otherwise survive. I agree with Equendil that OTRS issues should be handled otherwise than at WP:AFD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although lists of affiliates are an encyclopedic topic and I think it's obvious that these would need to be kept in some form, I think the nominator is correct that there are problems with how these lists are organized. Except for List of WB affiliates, which is arranged from Alabama to Wyoming, the rest of these attempt to rank the stations by the size of the TV market. You can find Denver, but it's somewhere between "Cleveland-Akron" and "Orlando-Daytona Beach". I'll confess that I don't know what an OTRS issue is, and hope that someone can explain it. Mandsford (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTRS. To put it simply, OTRS, in a Wikipedia context, means that somebody submitted a complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing for AFD to do here. Wikipedia:Copyright problems is second door on the left. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete all (G12) — copyright infringement. MuZemike (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It is still very much under discussion whether these are copyright violations, and they are certainly not blatant enough to qualify under CSD:G12. Let's not be hasty. Stifle (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I understand, now. Stricken. MuZemike (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reclassify We should hold off any deletion decision until everything is clarified on the noticeboard topic. I would reorganize all of these by state in order to satisfy the Nielsen request to pull their data, but deletion should not be a step to take unless we can do absolutely nothing to fix this. We're far from that step at this point, and these can be rescued. Nate • (chatter) 23:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists, tables, compilations of data, and the like are not covered under copyright. If some amount of the lead text is copied, remove it in the meantime and replace it with a single sentence, but the data in the tables is not novel. user:j (aka justen) 05:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More information on the underlying takedown request is here: Wikipedia:AN#Nielson DMCA Takedown. I believe simply removing the "DMA" column from the tables on these articles should suffice in removing any threat of a copyright violation, however baseless I consider said threat to be. Will post a mention of this AfD in aforementioned discussion. user:j (aka justen) 06:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Nielsen wants those articles taken down, they know how to contact Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's misleading. The OTRS ticket in question does not address any of those articles ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. As previously mentioned, there is nothing for a communal decision about inclusion to do. If knuckling under the DMCA notice requires the deletion or editing of these articles, those with the knowledge to determine that - something we don't have - will be able to take care of it faster than an AfD can. Whether or not there'll be anything left worth having these articles is not something that we can evaluate now. So thanks for the sentiment, but this nomination can't work.
Could someone who wasn't too busy getting involved in the debate close this under the snowball clause, please? --Kiz o r 06:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - any articles that were problematic under the DMCA takedown notice were deleted at the time of the initial deletions, so the OTRS basis is faulty. A mass nomination based on it is not going to yield any useful results. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:01, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Dowling[edit]

I can't find anything about said person, a major COI too. StaticGull Talk 11:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any significant coverage out there, fails WP:N, and little indulgence here for autobios and vandalism on the user page of another editor. Equendil Talk 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Not even any evidence on the website of the "ultimate fighting championship" (his one claim to fame) that he exists.Austin46 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Austin46. I cannot find anything about the article's subject either; it could be a hoax. VG ☎ 01:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No record on sherdog, which he would certainly have if he were in the UFC RogueNinja_talk 01:23, 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) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally Famous: Born a Thug Die a Thug[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources". Prod removed without fixing sourcing. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-20t11:10z 11:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources". Schuym1 (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Schuym; "early information about it should be in the artist's article". Cliff smith ^talk 19:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the general consensus on future albums. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an upcoming album. It also has confirmed tracks and everything. --Piazzajordan2 (Talk.) 20:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove that it's confirmed. The sources in the article aren't reliable. Schuym1 (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability for future albums per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Lacks reliable sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:03, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Perry[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Fails to appear on Google, Google News, and Google Scholar, and the article itself asserts no assertions of notability except that he is the director of an organization. I have found no third-party sources that discuss the subject in any detail. Themfromspace (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited from an organisation by its staff. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see quite a bit of information that he worked for various Presidents. This suggests that there will be more information. I don't believe Google is the end all to be all. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like he has done a lot but hasn't attracted much attention from the media. All the sources are primary ones. It's too bad that the media is more interested in "bad guys" than "good guys", but that's the rules on WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to what is in the article, I get 429 gnews hits for "daniel perry" aging after 1985, (few or no false positives) 123 gbooks hits for that search, with some false pos, and 73 gscholar hits. He is in The Health Care 1000, a book on the 1000 most influential people and orgs in health care. There's A tribute to Daniel Perry. Interview by Val J. Halamandaris. in Caring, a Tavis Smiley interview from NPR and other stuff from google. e.g. [17] or [18].John Z (talk) 02:09, 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, Black Kite 10:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks like John Z dug up some good sources. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs work, but the new sources seem to establish notability. --Megaboz (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Z. VG ☎ 02:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Z. -- Banjeboi 19:25, 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) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Bodies Strike Like Matches[edit]

As yet unreleased EP by a band that does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Unverified, WP:CRYSTAL. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreleased EP by a non-notable band. Schuym1 (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the band nor the EP are notable. Bláthnaid ^talk 18:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no reliable sources --Megaboz (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be a speedy category for albums of redlinked bands. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:04, 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 redirect to History of the Spanish language. Cirt (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of Castilian Spanish[edit]

Article was created without any sources by a now-inactive editor on March 18, 2008. There is already an article that covers this subject called History of the Spanish language, there are multiple clean-up tags, and the only sources in the article are the ones I put there to define the term Castilian Spanish. This article isn't needed as the other like article covers the subject. Kman543210 (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge if there's anything worth adding to History of the Spanish language). The creator probably just didn't realize there was already an article covering the material. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:20, 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, Black Kite 10:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be largely a fork of History of the Spanish language with much of that page copy/pasted here. Equendil Talk 13:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate content or Redirect to History of the Spanish language, where the duplicated content comes from. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Beeblebrox. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't imagine anyone searching for "Expansion of Castilian Spanish" (except the page creator) to justify the redirect, and the material is mostly covered in the properly titled article. VG ☎ 02:10, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tejraj Dedavat[edit]

I removed the prod tag from this because a prod had previously been contested. The nominator's rationale was "Article about an obscure local businessman written by a close associate of the article subject." Phil Bridger (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't have the same telepathic powers as the prod nominator to enable me to know whether the article was written by a close associate of the article subject, but I agree that this is an obscure, unnotable local businessman. If you weed out all of the peacockery (don't you just love "whose presence was felt like a roaring lion"?) all you seem to be left with was that he ran Mumbai's number one umbrella manufacturing business. Google Books and News archive searches find nothing and a straight web search just gets Wikipedia mirrors and a blog. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator.I myself was thinking of nominating this and other page Sarkar Laxmichand Hingarh for deletion for sometime.Clearly not notable.Shyamsunder23:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Google returns 4 hits for Tejraj Sagarmalji Dedavat, 3 hits for Tejraj Sagarmal Dedavat and 56 for Tejraj Dedavat (most of which appear to be blogs and Wikipedia mirror sites).-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 12:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google is irrelevant for this sort of article. Unfortunately, I doubt that sources could be found in practice by people here. The only person likely to know sources for this is the original editor, and it looks like he has never been warned or notified or offered any help by either the person placing the prod or the afd. I did so now. Of course, he was in a practical sense notified by placing the tag on the article, since he did remove the prod, but a more personal explanation such as I just gave him might work, for the article looks like it did have a source (since it seems a copypaste from an obit, possibly capable of rewriting). If not adequately sourced, of course delete. It's hard to judge from the information here whether he'd be notable, but some of the accomplishments might conceivably have specifics, though they were not given. It's possible Mubai's umbrella business was very significant--it's the second largest city in the world with 13 million people, and umbrellas are very widely used in India DGG (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not cite specific reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We cannot have WP:BLP articles that are mostly, if not completely, unverifiable. People have used Wikipedia to proliferate hoaxes for their own benefit before, and Wikipedia got bad press in return. AfD'd Sarkar Laxmichand Hingarh too. VG ☎ 02:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMPORTANT : I am not in favour of deletion of any article on merely ignorance of a subject .Anyway it finally on management to allow such data pages or not. But i have noted that Jainism or jain personalities or any jain religion related pages are not entertained by Management . And deletion of such articles will only substantiate the claim. Like For Said page deletion one should visit related historical places & tally . Because what if later one finds that it was hasty decision to delete genuine personalities pages wouldnt one be guilty of same. In India there exist many history facts remain un recorded &it has to start somewhere. Now there existed many Famous Jain Monks which you cant find on Google , but what if someone tries to specify here , how you are going to justify. So i request if pages that are not creating envy should be spared in benefit of doubt. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
DeleteI tried to look at the article in the most sympathetic fashion that I could but could not find any good reason to keep it. --Deepak D'Souza 12:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ok, Jimbo and his fellow managers (don't have the slightest idea who they are) are against a certain sect. I think this is my chance to get in to the Boss's good book. So a delete reason! Seriously, this arrticle fails the notability and verifiablity standards by some miles. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 19:30, 24 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. Cirt (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vedavyasapriya Swami[edit]

Non notable person, Google comes up with 60 hits Article is also very POV. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete, fails WP:BIO entirely. Equendil Talk 18:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Note also copyvio of http://abhay001.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/his-holiness-vedavyasapriya-swami-maharaj/ Equendil Talk 07:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Been rewritten. Equendil Talk 12:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's been re-added, 95% of the article is now a quote from a [weblog] I think that in this state the article would even qualify for a speedy~~ Erebus Morgaine (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Rewritten but even with it's condensed size like it is now, the quote still makes up the majority of the article. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have reduce the quote and contextualized it in the "History" section. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep The article needs a rewrite, but the subject of the article is notable. He is an ISKCON Swami (No. 81). I will add the reference to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, the proper name is usually Vedavyasa Priya Swami, or Vedavyasa-priya Swami. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I see how that makes that person notable, any non trivial coverage ? Equendil Talk 17:10, 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 - possibly a less notable, but still one of ISKCON swamis, but notable for being from a rather traditional background. Not too many sources in books... so the article should be shorten. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Wikidās ॐ 07:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A traditional background does not make one notable enough for Wikipedia, also notability does not directly limit article content as stated in WP:NNC. Although the article has improved a bit, it still only has 4 sources 3 of those are from ISKCON, the other from a personal website, these are primary sources only. Therefore the article fails WP:N which states the subject must have significant coverage in secondary sources. Google scholar, news and books return zero results on either "Vedavyasa Priya Maharaja" and "Vedavyasa Priya Swami" or even "Vedavyasa Priya" Erebus Morgaine (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that traditional background by itself does not warrant notability. The combination of him being an ISKCON leader, guru, sannyasi and being from a traditional background does. The religious sources for the religious leaders can be considered as reliable sources. I certainly agree that academic sources should be added to the article and yes the sources of googlescholar and googlebook do not have any indexed material in English on him. Wikidās ॐ 11:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am sorry, but sources not independent of the subject are not to be considered reliable. Third party sources are needed. Equendil Talk 12:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sources from an organization that state how that person is notable in that organization are reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The sources quoted are not his personal site or a blog and are not under any control of the individual. Hope that clarifies it. Wikidās ॐ 13:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The sources currently in the article are primary sources and are not independent sources. Therefore the article fails WP:GNG which clearly states (emphasis mine): "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." and is further clarified by: "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject". Notability aside, the article also fails verifiability especially this section. While i am sure this person does a lot of good work for his organization, that does not mean he meets the notability/verifiability threshold for inclusion into Wikipedia. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you may note the sources are not the best, but are not primary, are independent from the subject and were in majority accepted as a reliable sources on WP:RSN for the particular sect and who is and who is not notable in the religious group. Some areas of article may not be verifiable and need to be. It is not his work for organization that makes him notable, its his position in it. Wikidās ॐ 19:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which discussion on WP:RSN are you refering to ? Equendil Talk 22:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed a few times in principle. Obviously official site of ISKCON is reliable source for ISKCON related information: Reliable sources for ISKCON related articles Wikidās ॐ 00:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so obviously as you state, the page you refer to states (emphasis mine): "Membership in ISKCON would appear to be a substantial notability claim." however that is based solely on one comment of a single editor, I'd hardly call that consensus. Furthermore, WP:SOURCES states "Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly." In my above comments I have shown that the article fails WP:V and WP:SOURCES (an official Wikipedia policy, which takes precedence over WP:RS which in turn, is a guideline). And even aside from all of this, WP:RS which you mention, does not mention that ISKCON is a secondary or tertiary source. Let alone an independent one. Since this article still has no secondary/tertiary (independant) sources (as per my comments above) and Google scholar/news/books come up with zero results, my initial statement of it failing WP:N and WP:V still stands. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Erebus Morgaine. I have added other references to the site, including The Tribune newspaper, Vaisnava Institute of Higher education and University paper among many other independent sources that mention him. Ideally the person would have been a subject of independent study, but since there are many sources that confirm the claims of notability, ie that he is guru and swami in ISKCON, it is a specialized field and only a few editors are expert in it. There is no lack of multiple sources that confirm the claim of notability. Also as with BLPs, subjects website is a good source of material, in fact preferred one for contentious claims. Wikidās ॐ 10:20, 20 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, Black Kite 10:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that while the article has been made to look "well referenced" since its nomination for AfD, the references lead to trivial material used as primary source. Essentially links showing the subject to be scheduled for various events as part of his work.
Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject". "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". Equendil Talk 11:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per same WP:BIO we can state that improvements have worked out and can be reasonably assumed on future improvement, so no reason for AfD. You are trying to paint it as if the sources are published by the subject or primary. They are not. Wikidās ॐ 20:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of secondary sources. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's true that the subject is only coincidentally mentioned in sources outside of the religious hierarchy he belongs to. But he is verifiably (including according to 3rd party sources) part of that religious hierarchy. In theory this alone should not make him notable. But in practice every Catholic cardinal is, even though most pages of that kind have no references other than Catholic ones. In the absence of any explicit notability guidelines regarding religious figures, this is a de facto guideline for inclusion (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS gets IAR'd here). Unless you want to delete 90% of the cardinals of course. Frankly, I think that something similar to Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) should be drafted for religious figures as well, i.e. they should somehow stand out amongst their peers. Being part of the highest level (under the top figure) of a religious hierarchy would qualify as the religious equivalent of "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". VG ☎ 02:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: My analogy assumes that the religion itself is notable, which seems to be the case here. Obviously, being the top figure in an non-notable religion shared by 5 people does not automatically make someone notable. VG ☎ 19:32, 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 Nom withdrawn, chopping to a stub instead.(Non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentient being (Buddhism)[edit]

What could have been an article about a legitimate Buddhist topic is instead a mishmash of hyperbole and long quotes. Reads more like a religious tract than an encyclopedic entry. Author seems unwilling to discuss on talk page. Does not adhere to a neutral point of view in any way from start to finish, for example "'Gyatso (2003: pp.132-133) beautifully illustrates the majesty of emanation theory and its salient interpenetration with sentient beings'". I would just cut it down to a stub, but I don't think I'd know where to begin. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not redirect to Sentience#Eastern religion pro tem, per WP:NOTCLEANUP? Richard Pinch (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments While I agree that this article is completely ridiculous, full of misapprehensions about "encyclopedicality", fair use, and certain concepts—Turing test, for instance, has tenuous connections at best to this topic—and in any case not useful to the vast majority of readers, I'm not sure without more discussion that deletion is the answer. As you suggest, it could have been legitimate, which suggests to me in turn that it should be. It does need to be started over or cut down by maybe nine-tenths. I'm afraid redirecting it to the Sentience article proper will be too confining and may cause problems with some of WP's Buddhologists. I've started work on an alternative stub, which I will link here for referencing and polishing shortly. /Ninly (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If an article is badly written, that's a reason to rewrite it, not to delete it. The nominator says we could have an article about a legitimate Buddhist concept, so that, rather than deletion, is the solution. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think the current article can be salvaged and it should be deleted with no prejudice toward future re-creation as a proper article. On the other hand, I'd like to see Ninly's alternate idea, maybe we could just replace it now and close up the AfD, that would be fine with me too. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep AfD is not for cleanup, nom. gives no reason subject itself is against policy. Sticky Parkin 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I don't think the current article can be cleaned up and the easiest way to fix it would be to delete and start over. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as admittedly a notable topic, even by the nom. I don't find it incomprehensible, but the quotes are a little excessive for our customary fair use, though probably within the US legal limits. If some of it is incorrect, it can be fixed. There are a great many English-speaking people in the world interested in Buddhism--I don't know the intersection between Buddhists and those who can read English, but I'd guess at 50 million of the perhaps 500 million Buddhists and then there are all those interested non-Buddhist Westerners.... But that's not even relevant, because our articles doesn't have to be useful to a large number of readers, since this is a comprehensive encyclopedia. I'd say, in fact, that articles on very specialized topics are ones that are important to have, because people need information about what they don't already know. DGG (talk) 20:05, 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 per WP:SNOW. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Schroeder[edit]

Neglected stub, no notability. DonaldDuck (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable for the longest survival with an artificial heart. Edward321 (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added serveral sources including a biographical book and news stories. The medical journal coverage of the man is also extensive, but I do not have access to many of those. Clearly notable. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability appears to be well established by appropriate references. Austin46 (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: So you consider coverage by reliable sources such as The New York Times non-notable? Schuym1 (talk) 16:01, 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 : Speedily deleted as vandalism - blatant hoax with fake references. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen (sitcom)[edit]

An IP pointed out on the talk page that this "appears to be a complete fabrication". It does appear to be a hoax, a quick look on Factiva found nothing. --Commander Keane (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More telltale signs that this is a fabrication: a) Boxofficemojo link is to Fallen (film), not this, b) The supposed Rotten Tomatoes link for "Fallen" is actually a review of "Independence Day". c) Supposedly grossed in the hundreds of millions of dollars, yet the actors or producers are complete unknowns. Fake sources and unbelievable claims. WP:HOAX. Enough said. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone has a runaway imagination. HBO doesn't do daytime, and TV series don't gross anything except ad and subscription sales. This sitcom also sounds incredibly depressing. Nate • (chatter) 10:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax per all above, and block article creator for creation of a fake article with fake references. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fallen and shouldn't get up. 150,000,000 DVDs sold in the first month? Yeah, right. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. You gotta admit, it was a good run though HAHAHAHA you fools left it up for about 4 months! For the record, some of the numbers might have been scewed, but this is definetly a real show, Ive seen it myself.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Motorola 68000 family. There is no consensus to delete this time around, however this article may be put up for deletion again if the merge is not completed soon (my guideline is usually one month) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola 68050[edit]

Article about a chip which was never produced. The previous AfD nomination cited this and resulted in delete. Speedy G4 deletion of this recreated article was contested because it appears not to be word-for-word the same. However, the chip has still never been produced; it is still non-notable and the article makes no attempt to demonstrate otherwise. Ros0709 (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Motorola 68000 family. Rilak (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-production does not mean non-notable (e.g. Microsoft Bob which was also never released) which appears to be the entire criteria for deletion here. Wayne Hardman (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But the Microsoft Bob article says with "released in March 1995"? Anyway, non-released isn't non-production. Even if a product isn't released, it might be notable still if it was produced and developed internally. But there's no evidence that this chip existed beyond being a hypothetical possibility. Should we have articles for Motorola 68080 or Motorola 12345? (I know we have a Motorola 68070, for some reason the admin redirected that despite no one in the earlier AfD suggesting that, I guess because he thought there might be confusion with the Philips 68070 which does exist.) Mdwh (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, not only was the 68050 never produced, it was, as the article states, cancelled early, there's no article to build on this. Motorola 68000 family already mentions it. Equendil Talk 14:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Motorola 68000 family. RockManQ (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge . I declined speedy because this was a much better article, explaining the importance more clearly. This chop was more than speculation--development on it was undertaken. The amount of material that should be available for even a cancelled major project like this should be substantial. But if not, then I suggested a merge. DGG (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)'[reply]
Merge and redirect. Not enough notability or references to keep individual but may be to family article. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Motorola 68000 family. This article is almost a stub, so merging is very practical. Also, there are no sources cited in this article, but presumably something can be found, and the criteria for notability is lower if this info were included in another article rather than stand-alone. VG ☎ 03:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete My concern is not notability, but the complete lack of any sources (the only source there was a circular reference that was sourced from Wikipedia, presumably the original version of the article). Note that judging by the text at [19] and the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginary Motorola CPUs, the original article was about a product that it admitted didn't exist, which is why lack of notability was relevant (articles about non-existent products usually aren't notable!) However, this article claims that such a chip did exist, at least in planning stages. If this was true, I think it could be notable, however it's not clear whether it is or not. If sources can be found, I will change my vote; and my vote should also not be taken as a delete if any future version of an article is created that does have reliable sources. But until then, we have no idea if this is true, or just made up. I'm not sure what good a redirect would be, if there turn out to be no sources for this - I fear we'll just end up with loads of non-existent chip names redirecting there. Mdwh (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Motorola 68000 family. Not an unreasonable search term, for people who may know about the '030, '040, and '060. If there's anything salvageable, merge it. Neier (talk) 22:04, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Williamson[edit]

Williamson fails WP:ATHLETE. He has not played for a fully professional club; he played for Brechin City F.C., who are semi-professional. He has played for the Shetland Islands, but that team is not a national football team in the normal sense of the phrase. Most of their matches have been games against their neighbour Orkney. Shetland does not compete in international tournaments, such as the World Cup or the European Championship. Any Shetland player who was of a high enough standard would play for Scotland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet the WP:ATHLETE requirements, which are fairly lax to start with. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure the Any Shetland player who was of a high enough standard would play for Scotland argument holds. If so there would only be 25 or so active Scottish players at any one time in Wikipedia, and I think there may be more than that. As far as Shetland goes - they seem to play a lot of internationals, article notes 16 different opponents. Nfitz (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you're basically saying is that every player who plays for Shetland is notable. They don't play in what is commonly understood as international football. Their opponents are other islands or island groups, only one of which has since been admitted to full international football (Faroe Islands national football team). There is basically zero coverage of these matches in the mainstream media; the only time I've ever read about the Shetland team was a historic piece about how they beat the Faroes in a match 30 years ago, in the week before a Scotland v Faroes match. My point about being good enough to play for Scotland is not to say that every Scottish footballer on WP needs to be of that standard, the point is that the Shetland team is a sub-national representative team, effectively like a county team. If there was a Shetlander of a high enough standard, he would play for Scotland, in the same way that Channel Islanders play for England (eg Matthew Le Tissier or Graeme Le Saux). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE - playing for a non-UEFA and non-FIFA "national" team is not a proof of notability, we have similar teams about Padania, for instance, and I doubt their players are notable by any stretch of imagination. --Angelo (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. If he was to be notable for playing international football, it'd be for Scotland, not the Shetland Islands. --Jimbo^[online] 09:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. As the article states, Williamson "represents his County side of the Shetland Islands" (my italics). Shetland isn't a nation, it's a county of Scotland (I think they're now called "council areas") which happens to lie offshore, just as Anglesey is a county of Wales and the Isle of Wight is a county of England. As such its representative side doesn't play international football. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N and representing Shetland does not count as competing in international football. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 24 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 Redirected to Najica Blitz Tactics#Theme music. Non-admin closure. --erachima talk 22:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natsumi Harada[edit]

Article does not include any reliable 3rd-party reference sources for verification other than a brief IMBD entry, and fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). DAJF (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no news resources at all that even mention this person, and even a general Google search yields sparse results, all related to a single, non-noteworthy end-title song. Perhaps the the future, this person may satisfy the musical notability requirements, but at present, it would not appear to be the case. Ariel♥Gold 03:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the suggestion in WP:MUSIC to the article for the show she performed the closing theme for, Najica Blitz Tactics. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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, Protonk (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not cite reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the Najica Blitz Tactics article does. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm happy for a redirect there then. Stifle (talk) 22:53, 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mander family[edit]

Though some members may prove notable, the family itself is not necessarily worthy of an article. Majority of sources are geneaology books written by folks named Mander... Addionne (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for this. As far as I can see, quite a few pages link in and the ranking is OK, at least compared to other articles in the "English families" category, rather randomly sampled. Can you check this is so? The family seems locally notable; but the more distinguished members have their own Wikipedia articles, which may be sufficient. One solution might be to cut the introductory matter and [s]merge material with the existing "Mander baronets" article. But there's no standard form for an article in that category. With regard to sources, the detailed bibliographies are in the sources cited; could clean up here. Handsaw (talk) 16 September 2008

Keep I see a lot of this discussion (rehearsing arguments relevant here) has taken place re a linked article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Huxley_family But the result was inconclusive... Handsaw (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2008

Only one "keep" per person please. It should be noted Handshaw is the article creator. Dlohcierekim 01:12, 20 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, Protonk (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the statement of the nominator. There are certainly notable Manders (and in fact are listed here on WP), but like Addionne suggests, the family overall doesn't seem to be notable enough for its own article. I mean, should the Carr family be included for Eric, a drummer with KISS, and Robin, a pulp romance novelist? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I think the WP:NOTINHERITED should apply here. Simply having a number of notable individual members does not yet make a family notable under WP:N. One really needs to have some independent sources covering the family as a family. In this case a couple of such sources are listed, but they are written by members of the Mander family itself and thus are not independent. The book of Patricia Pegg is an independent source but it appears to be a book about a specific Mander. Nsk92 (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a number of notable family members is exactly what makes a family notable. A book about one Mander will mention the others, so it provides for independent verification. N does not depend on independent sourcing always, if there is reliable material from which an article can be written. DGG (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking over the biographies, connection to the family and status in Wolverhampton seems to have played a significant role in the lives of most of the Manders. Choess (talk) 20:27, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Asmin Tariq[edit]

A suspected terrorist only notable for the 2006 transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot. WP:ONEEVENT applies here. - Icewedge (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom, and also on 'Presumption in favor of privacy' grounds - though the subject was arrested he wasn't even charged with a crime. Sashaman (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
August 2006 AfD : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Muneem Patel. Of course, we now have the benefit of retrospect. No opinion here. - Mailer Diablo 08:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently not notable enough to be worth mentioning even once in either the main article or the security response subarticle. Both ext. links are broken and the reference just points to a list of names and addresses. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain He was for a short period of widespread international interest, and the event in connection with which he was of interest was a major one that will remain of historic significance. The role he was accused of was specified--having provided information about the details of airport security. There remain a few dozen stories on Google news where the links are working perfectly well as sources. But he was arrested, and released, and I do not see that further news is available. His name should certainly be mentioned in the main article, but I am not sure of aseparate one--a redirect might be sufficient., After all, people will encounter the name and want information.DGG (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:ONEEVENT and never charged with a crime. We66er (talk) 05:36, 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. The work on this article since nomination appears to have been enough to save it for now, however I would encourage continued work on this article to prevent a re-nomination in later months. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Side of AIDS[edit]

Fails notability criteria for films. Contested WP:PROD. No sources cited beyond IMDB, which does not contribute to notability. Without independent, reliable sources, will end up as a WP:COATRACK for AIDS denialism. MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, no notable ghits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashaman (talk • contribs) 07:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have won an award and been reviewed by mainstream sources [20] --Rividian (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as of right now no proven notability. I share concerns with nom, too, that this article will become a magnet for AIDS denialism. RockManQ (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Changed to Neutral based on Rividian's evidence; however, my coatrack fear still stands. RockManQ (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not cite reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It does not say they must be cited (nevertheless, one is, in contradiction of your claim). But the sources have been found, this complies with WP:V. --Rividian (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - To go back to WP:NF: I see the review in Variety, but not "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" (am I missing one?) Can we get more detail about exactly what AFI award the film won? My instinct is still that this should be deleted or redirected to Christine Maggiore; most of the Google News hits have to do with the death of Maggiore's and Scovill's daughter from untreated AIDS, and its relevance to her/their assertion that HIV is harmless. This is covered in Christine Maggiore. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Stifle didn't mention WP:NF, he just made an invalid and annoying comment I had to respond to. If there's not a second full length review to be found anywhere, then a redirect is fine with me. But the sources and the award do justify at least a redirect. --Rividian (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I managed to skip over the Seattle Times review. Changing to weak keep. Stifle (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed with Np holmes below; the Seattle Times is not a "review" and not even really a Seattle Times piece. It's a reprint of an article from the Los Angeles Times, discussing Christine Maggiore (the director's wife) and the death of their child from untreated AIDS. The film is mentioned in passing, as evidence of Maggiore's AIDS denialism. MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a Seattle Times review in the google news results that Rividian links, but a story about Maggiore's child's death, which mentions the film. In answer to MastCell's question, according to IMDB here, the award was "Documentary Award - special mention" (the actual "Documentary Award" winner was another film). They seem to give "special mentions" intermittently in each category. I'd favour Delete and redirect. N p holmes (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a review in Variety, it appears to be about 1,000 words. --Rividian (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per review in Variety and review in Seattle Times, and coverage HERE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Added infobox and set reviews in theeir own section. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See above: the Seattle Times piece is not a film review. MastCell ^Talk 04:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: per the reviews, coverage, and the award. Schuym1 (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Special award from the American Film Institute = notable. I've added some reviews, including one from the Hollywood Reporter. miniluv (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also think that the two review thing is a bunch of bull shit. I think that articles are fine with only one review. Schuym1 (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why would anyone have a neutral vote, delete vote, or a weak keep vote when it won an award. Winning a notable award is automatic notability. Schuym1 (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:COATRACK is an essay and essays should not be used in deletion discussions. Schuym1 (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "two review thing" is a Wikipedia policy that helps ensure that low-quality, self-made videos are not mistaken for notable films. Schuym1 is welcome to an opinion, but I doubt that the notability criteria have changed today. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has, it has two reviews now and coverage in reliable sources. This AFD discussion is bull shit. Schuym1 (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you mean by Youtube? This isn't about a damn Youtube video! Schuym1 (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys don't even understand what is considered notable. Schuym1 (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it won a notable award! Schuym1 (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It passes everything in WP:Notability for crying out loud! Schuym1 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you guys even bothered to read WP:Notability? Schuym1 (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to relax. No one here is on a huge crusade to remove this article from Wikipedia; there simply are editors that believe that this article is not in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and thus does not belong here. On the flip side, there are people (like yourself) that believe that it should be included, and thus we have civil arguments. The presence of arguments does not mean the presence of vindictiveness on the part of anyone here. Now, have a cup of tea and relax. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned, this movie does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. A mention of it in the Seattle newspaper and a link to Wikipedia's own article on the AFI do not suffice to establish notability. Twelve sentences or ~~three~~ corrected, thanks, Rividian: five paragraphs online do not qualify as "full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" whether or not one agrees with the two review criterion. As for the AFI award, the film didn't get the documentary prize; it received a "special mention." Is the documentary prize at AFI Los Angeles a "major award" (see the footnote)? If it is, can this "secondary criterion" (see footnote again) establish notability on its own? And if so, should the "special mention" be considered a "major award" as well as the actual prize? I would answer 'no' at least to question three, and just one is enough for deletion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It got two reviews which shows notability. What do you consider full length? Schuym1 (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And this http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117924237.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 shows notability also! Schuym1 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And you're wrong, even passing one is a good reason to keep an article. Schuym1 (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If articles had to pass everything then there would be barely any damn articles! Schuym1 (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It has been proven notable, but I give up. Schuym1 (talk)
        Thank you for deleting your abusive comments. May I suggest that we focus on the article, not your opinion of Wikipedia policies? If you disagree with the criteria for inclusion of films, you are welcome to voice your opinions here. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You didn't answer my question. What do you consider full length? Schuym1 (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And there is nothing that says that it has to pass everything. Schuym1 (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And they are not opinions. Schuym1 (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am fine with WP:NF and the film passes it because it has three reviews. Schuym1 (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's take this discussion to your talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And lest we continue to forget.... and with respects, I am going to chime in here... the WP:NF guideine states

The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

3. Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

4. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[3]

5. The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

6. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

7. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[4]

8. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[5]

9. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

I wish to stress that this guideline states "following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist". The guideline DOES NOT state that these attributes must exist to be notable, only that IF they do, then reliable sources are liley to be found... as an encouragement for editors to be diligent in theeir searches. It is an error to read that section as a mandate or limitation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And further, it does not state we must discount "minor"' reviews. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So it passes WP:NF, WP:Notability, WP:RS, and WP:Verifiability. Schuym1 (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update Have just added reviews from 2002 until 2008. Some are extensive. Some are less so. All address continued notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Comment I will not involve myself in an edit war. However, I request the closing Admin take a very close look at THIS DIFF to see that the entire swathe of reviews I had added covering a span from 2002 to 2008 wer batch removed. They were there. Notability had been established. Now they are gone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... those "reviews" were virtually all from blogs, self-published websites, AIDS-denialist webforums, and the like. None "established notability", none were encyclopedic, and they were properly removed. MastCell ^Talk 05:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Err... no.... they were not. Anyone who studies the diff wil see that. Bye and good luck. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As an uninvolved administrator, I will note practically all of the removed sites (aside from the Yahoo! one, which is just a description of the movie and not a review) were blogs and similar and thus failed WP:RS. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable per nom and Keepcalmandcarryon. The article fails WP:RS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh are you saying Variety and the Seattle Times aren't reliable sources? Your comment doesn't seem to make sense, given the evidence of reliable sources presented. Keepcalmandcarryon's comment also incorrectly claims a 5 paragraph 460 word review is just "3 paragraphs". --Rividian (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe, to refocus, we can list the sources that are out there and whose quality could conceivably support a neutral, encyclopedic article. I see the review in Variety. The Seattle Times article (actually a reprint of a Los Angeles Times article) is a news report about Christine Maggiore, the director's husband, and the death of their child from untreated AIDS. That issue is covered in depth at Christine Maggiore and should not be reduplicated here; the film is mentioned only very briefly, in one sentence IIRC, as evidence of the couple's beliefs about AIDS. Finally, there's the AFI - my understanding is that the film did not receive any award there, but did receive "special mention" ([21]). I'm not sure how much weight to assign that factoid. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well admittedly one full-length review in a RS is rather thin. What's wrong with filmcritic and Hollywood Reporter, though? I'm not arguing, just asking (sorry if this was covered in the above back-and-forth, but I stopped reading after the personal attacks started flying). At any rate, like I said, if multiple reviews from RSes can't be found, I'd be fine with a redirect. I just get annoyed when people come in and claim there aren't any RSes of any sort, when there obviously are. --Rividian (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the correction, Rividian. I miscounted the paragraphs in the filmcritic review (not that my argument was very good anyway, unless there's a clear boundary for "full length"). More saliently, filmcritic.com is the personal website of someone named Christopher Null; search for it on Wikipedia, and you will be directed to Null's bio. The Hollywood Reporter is a reliable source, I think, on par with Variety as a long-time industry paper. But the review in HR is also a short capsule, not a full review, as I think you might agree despite my inability to count! As industry mags, HR and Variety will have capsules on practically everything, notable for Wikipedia or not. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — notable by a landslide. Two reviews, a film award, and big controversy. Meets the WP:GNG. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christine Maggiore. Debated on this quite a bit, but I feel this film is not quite notable. Only two reviews, and while good reviews, being just 2 doesn't speak to much notability on their own. The award is a "special jury award" rather than a regular award, with no explanation that I can find as to why it was given. The main controversy seems to be more about Christine Maggiore's claims in the film followed by her child's death. Additionally, I think the topic would be better served in a single article, rather than having to redundant articles trying to do separate treatments on the same basic topic. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about AIDS denialism or about Christine Maggiore. It's about a notable documentary. There's no reason to redirect it. I have added an article from the Canadian Press about the premiere. You may not like it. miniluv (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may not like what? The source? No reason I wouldn't, but I also don't see it as adding notability. The showing may have caused fewer folks at the AIDS walk at a single premiere. And? Was this unusual? Did they have the same problem if other films premiered? Did it happen in other cities that had AIDs walks or other events at the time, or was this a single city incident? Is it a controversial message. Yes, but it still relates directly to Maggiore. The message does not stand apart from her, nor does the controversy. "AIDs denialism"? *scratching head* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't mean you personally might not like it. It's an article about the documentary from a notable major news service! How could that not count towards notability?? I don't know the answers to your questions but I don't see how they are relevant to deleting or redirecting this article. miniluv (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its partly about the documentary, but still mostly about Maggiore and her husband. I just can't see how it can be separated "cleanly" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two reviews?? If anything, that's a sign of how unnotable it is. Delete as it fails WP:NF and has no extraordinary or redeeming circumstances that would render the guidelines in WP:NF inappropriate in this case. naerii 22:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep. Bad-faith nom that smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Two reviews in widely-read journals in the entertainment industry, two newspaper articles about the controversy, three notable film festivals, and an award puts it well beyond WP:N. And im sure there are umpteen other reviews out there, just the editors of the article picked two good ones. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The RS issues as related specifically to WP:NF were discussed above. "I'm sure there are reliable sources" is not a strong argument, particularly when the review sources offered here have been blogs and personal websites (with two exceptions, only one of which partially satisfies NF). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry... "bad-faith nom"? I won't repeat yet again why I feel that this topic does not meet notability criteria for a standalone article, but I'd hope you'd be willing to have at least minimal respect for a differing opinion. MastCell ^Talk 15:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it appears notable to me. And if the article does "end up as a coatrack", that can be solved by cleanup. --Pixelface (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's important to remember. Any article on a documentary, for example Supersize Me or Bowling for Columbine could plausibly become "coatracks" for various agendas, e.g. one paragraph about the film and 20 about politics, but obviously the solution is cleanup, not deletion. Notability should be the concern here. --Rividian (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's true. My concern is that the less reliably sourced material we have, the more likely a coatrack is to develop. A neutral, encyclopedic article can only be written if sufficient neutral, encyclopedic sources exist. In the absence of good sources, it's much easier to write a coatrack about AIDS denialism and much harder to write a standalone encyclopedia article. I think we're borderline here, at best. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 24 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. If users wish to merge the article as proposed, please take up that discussion on the article's talk page. There have been enough comments here I'm not willing to relist it, and there is no consensus to delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS Inc.[edit]

Fails notability criteria. IMDB is the only cited source. Contested WP:PROD. Without independent, reliable sources, this can only ever be a WP:COATRACK for AIDS denialism. MastCell ^Talk 05:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. Its rather borderline, I did find two articles [22][23] but I am not sure about the reliability of these sources and there is nothing much else out there other then a few trivial one sentence mentions and blogs or other SPS's. - Icewedge (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to Gary Null, who is notable. Sticky Parkin 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to Gary Null. The article does not cite reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gary Null. It's not notable enough to earn its own article, but may worth mentioning. Victor Lopes (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Added a few links. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not covered by reliable sources. AIDS Inc. and Null's other self-produced films on AIDS are already addressed in Gary Null, although they are not mentioned by name. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, Closing Admin, please note this Diff. I will not edit war, and I do not care if the article stays or goes... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:20, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xanadu (colour)[edit]

This is only one of a large number of articles, each devoted to a single color on a color chart that I suspect is not notable belonging to a website that I suspect is not notable, xona.com. Is it even clear that the whole list would merit an article on Wikipedia, let alone squandering a whole page on every color on the chart? How does one submit a whole batch of pages for deletion discussion at once? Largo Plazo (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. There are many more; at the moment, this is as far as I've gotten with tagging them with the afd1 template:

Some of them are arbitrary names. Others are commonly used names, but they have been assigned to a point on the color wheel as though they have an exact definition that they don't possess, outside of an arbitrary (and subjective) color naming system that may assign them as such. WP:NOR seems to apply too.

Here's an example of the attitude that has gone into the use of Wikipedia to imply that these color names are somehow official: in the article on Zinnwaldite (color), it says

In the 1960s the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T) marketed zinnwaldite colored telephones for offices and homes. However, they described the color as "beige." It is therefore common for many people to refer to the color zinnwaldite as "beige."

The implication is that "zinnwaldite" is objectively speaking the "real" name for this color, and people say the phones are "beige" only because AT&T flouted the "real" term and used "beige" instead—as though otherwise people would naturally have called the color "zinnwaldite". In general, these articles represent an attempt to create specific definitions that don't already, objectively speaking, exist.

Unfortunately, there are also many color articles that began with and/or now contain material that is actually notable information about the color (see Baby blue, for example) but that have been adulterated with these subjective color name assignments. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that some related articles are about colors whose specific values were defined at the outset, such as Mountbatten pink. However, what that means is: A specific color was selected for a specific purpose, and it has been given, or has acquired, a name associated with that selection. It doesn't mean that that name is in any sense an official name for that color. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The instructions on nominating a bunch of articles is at WP:BUNDLE (also at WP:Afd). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The colour Xanadu is named after a specific identifiable physical object, the leaves of the Xanadu plant. Obviously the vast majority of the colors on the Xona.com Color List do not deserve to have their own articles because they are purely arbitrary names and none of them in fact so far have their own article, contrary to what you have stated. Only those colors on the list that are based on specific physical objects suchs as plants, flowers, minerals, etc. and that match the colors of these objects as identified from other sources should have their own articles. This article on the colour Xanadu meets that criterion. Keraunos (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This color name site, Name That Color: is very popular and includes most of the Web colors, some Wikipedia color list colors, the Crayola crayon colors, and the Xona.com Color List(Resene Paint Colors): all on a single list of more than 1500 colors. There is also an HSV color wheel on which you can move a cursor around, get a slice of the color wheel at that point, and find out which of the codes on of the colors on the list is to the color you have chosen. Keraunos (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't for the life of me see how the name associated with some shade on some color chart is more notable than the name associated with some other shade just because it's the name of a real-life object while the other is completely made up. Besides that, more of the text of this article is about the plant than about the color that's supposed to be the article's topic!

As for the cool things that can be done on the website: they aren't pertinent to the issue at hand. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is pertinent because the Name That Color website Name That Color: gets 12,000 hits on Google which shows that it is in fairly wide use, and most of the colors on it are from the Xona.com Color List. [24] . Keraunos (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well-known colors (e.g. Kelly green) don't get their own articles, much less those few people have ever heard of. Xona.com, the originator of these "colors", hasn't even established its own notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote most of the original color article on Kelly Green as a separate article, but another editor merged it and a lot of the other articles about the minor green colors into an article I had previously created called Variations of green to cover only the major, not the minor shades of green.

Original Kelly Green article when it was separate: Keraunos (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the most basic color names like red, yellow, green, blue, and magenta are abstract names. Most color names are based on physical objects. Examples include orange (based on the orange), violet (based on the violet), Purple (originally from the secretion of a mollusk), Indigo, rose (based on the rose), and cerise (based on the cherry--cerise is the French word for cherry). Therefore it is perfectly normal and standard to base the name of a color on a physical object as is the case in the Xanadu (colour) article. Keraunos (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here has said otherwise. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable regional color. Even if it is to be kept it should be on some sort of shades / variations of grey page and combined with some of the other stubbed / small grey articles (such as Arsenic (color), Charcoal (color), etc...) similar to what was done with the greens. PaleAqua (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above delete is for Xanadu (color), I'll update my comment later on the others. PaleAqua (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Variations of pink. Delete / merge for the rest of the articles. Davy's grey: notability not established, though I'd did find some sources when searching going as far back as quoting something from 1896. Arsenic: not notable. Charcoal: color is not notable, though use of charcoals in art is but covered in the main article. Zinnwaldite: I've not been able to find any non-wikipedia sources for this name as a color, though I'm sure I've heard a similar color name before. Xanadu: see my comments above. As for variations of pink, similar to Variations of green, etc, is it meant to house colors that have some notability but not enough for there own article. PaleAqua (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't seem like an encyclopedia article type topic to me. I would have never thought that WP would have an article on any color. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pardon, but how doesn't this pass notability guidelines? For Xanadu and Charcoal (I didn't check the others), we have two good-looking sources each for the colour itself. If we want to argue that individual colour shades aren't significant enough for their own articles, we shouldn't seek to delete properly-sourced ones — that's the purpose of merging. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What objective sources? With authority to dictate names for colors, to say "This is what this color name refers to, and it doesn't refer to any other shade"? In the case of charcoal, the notion is preposterous. Charcoal—both natural charcoal and charcoal used in drawing—Largo Plazo (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)comes in a variety of shades. There is no non-POV basis for declaring it to refer to a single shade. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the problems with providing coordinates for colors that are not part of some standard is that it strongly implies that their is one particular color for any name. PaleAqua (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG MERGE ALL Merge all gray shades to variations of gray, all pink shades to variations of pink, etc. Individual types of colors do not have the notability or references to sustain so many short articles. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least that, yes, but that wouldn't eliminate a couple of the problems—(1) the issue of color terms that are pure inventions and as such only mean what some self-designated person or small group says they mean, and (2) color names in popular use such as "charcoal" and "baby blue" cover a range of shades, and the association of each of them with a single set of color coordinates is a completely subjective and arbitrary assignment with no basis in actual usage. Both of these points boil down to the same thing: Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to declare terms to have meanings that they don't have. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for Charcoal, and Keep for the others. The color designation is very widely used for garments and other objects. A search for charcoal clothing on Google news gives 392 items, about half of which are relevant. [25]. "Charcoal suit" as a phrase gave 10. [26]." In at least a few of them the color is specified as being of significance in some manner. "charcoal-colored" gave 9 in GN, and an additional 225 in Google Scholar, 638 in Google Books, for a wide variety of types of objects. There are dozens of similar phrases to check for additional hits. As for the other colors, I suspect they might find at least a few such references. I don't see that anyone above even looked at all, and are just arguing about what ought to be included without actually checking for sources. DGG (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary." There is no argument that some of these terms don't exist or aren't used. Even with respect to them, one of the issues I've brought forward is whether any of them merits an article in Wikipedia as opposed to, at most, a dictionary. As for the ones like zinnwaldite and Xanadu: instead of suspecting that they might be used, the relevant question in an AfD is, I believe, is to replace suspicion one way or another with verification. Is zinnwaldite, in any notable sense, a color, and if so, then as a color, is there anything notable about it—is there anything worth observing about it—and can it legitimately be defined as narrowly as has been done? —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they are all physical colors of the spectrum. How are they any more notable then say blue or purple? Tavix (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Xanadu a color? Is zinnwaldite a color? As I noted, someone just made them up. As for the others, as I noted, someone made up the precise definitions given for them. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. As for relative notability, is something called "Davy's gray" really as notable as "red"? The same question could be asked about integers. Is 31,472 as notable as 7? Should there be an article about 31,472 just because it's a genuine integer? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All numbers are notable. ;) ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Walk into the paint section of any hardware store and you'll see hundreds of poetic names on color chips, that doesn't make them notable. Zinnwaldite (color) is already merged into Beige, and the color name beige predates the "zinnwaldite" telephones, which need a citation, by many years. Variations of pink should be merged to pink. Delete Arsenic (color) as neologism. Keep Davy's grey because it looks like a longstanding recipe for a pigment. Weak keep for Charcoal (color) because of the wide use of charcoal pencils in art. Xanadu (colour) should be merged to the Philodendron cultivar it's named after. And everybody knows Xanadu is really a discotheque. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMG - A separate article for every item in List of colors! Seems mergeworthy as there are separate articles on major color (colour) families. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI The List of colors is slightly misnamed, since it is actually a list of colors with articles. PaleAqua (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP FOR ALL Tonight I changed the color codes for the articles on charcoal and Davy's grey after sourcing them to a widely used color list. Obviously, since charcoal has been in use as a color name since 1606, it should be kept! I added more references to the zinnwaldite article. I found that Zinnwaldite has been in use as a color name since 1953. It is very important that Zinnwaldite be kept in because so many people confuse the color Zinnwaldite with beige because of that A.T.&T. telephone. I would have no problem with merging Zinnwaldite with Beige, but I would prefer to keep them separate. I have sources for most of the unsourced colors in Variations of pink which I'll insert tomorrow. Keraunos (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have a source for the "zinnwaldite" telephone? If so that's pretty interesting and should be added to the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the telephone was called beige but in actual fact it was colored zinnwaldite and thus many people mistakenly identify the color zinnwaldite as being beige. Keraunos (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've started trying to do more digging into what I can find out about telephones of that era. I believe the phone pictured on the Zinnwaldite page is a Western Electric 2500. I've found one set that lists some colors for the phones which appears to be part of the 500, 1500, 2500 family, see http://www.paul-f.com/we500typ.htm#Colors for WE 500 series. Note the -55 Rose Beige, -59 Rose Pink. Those might be the colors used. No mention of Zinnwaldite. There is also http://www.paul-f.com/color.htm#WE500 on the same site. Also see http://www.porticus.org/bell/telephones-colorcharts-1.html and http://www.porticus.org/bell/telephones-colorcharts-2.html, unfortunately both charts are after the color that is claimed to be "zinnwaldite" was discontinued. Looks like a chart from 1954-1957 might be best. Again haven't found anything that ties this to the name zinnwaldite. And the name does not appear in one of the larger color dictionaries that I have. PaleAqua (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What widely used color list? Sherman Williams'? Benjamin Moore's? Behr's? Lowes'? The World Wide Web Consortium's? If there's any one color list that could possibly be used as a source for notable names at the level of specificity you are aiming for, it would be something like Pantone. It certainly wouldn't be xona.com. (I had my house painted a Sherwin Williams color called "Innocence". In the end I chose it over "Demure" and "Romance". Should there be articles for those?) As it is, your source is a WP:NPOV violation, in my opinion. As far as zinnwaldite and beige are concerned, the two can't be "confused" because beige, like many color names, is a loose term that applies to a whole range of shades—and therein lies the fallacy in your arguments: the idea that every color name applies to one specific point in color space. Even the fact that you think it's a problem that people call phones beige instead of zinnwaldite indicates the level of subjectivity in your evaluation of this matter. To put it straight: no matter what other color term might be found from any of the numerous naming systems to describe the shade of the traditional light-colored phone, the fact remains that they were beige as well. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the beige article with the color chart of colors in the beige range which I originally included in the article: [27]. Obviously, zinnwaldite can be regarded as a shade of beige, but it is not beige, just as Bondi blue can be regarded as a shade of blue but it is not blue (Here is the blue article with the shades of blue color chart I originally included in it: [28]). The color beige is a specific and definite color which is the color of undyed cloth. Beige is a pale cream/ivory color, not a pale brown color like zinnwaldite. Keraunos (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bondi blue is blue just like a Red-tailed Sportive Lemur is an animal. Color names for the most part are descriptive not prescriptive. Furthermore wikipedia needs to be verifiable. Just saying that that telephone was zinnwaldite doesn't make it true and without good external sources it really shouldn't be presented as true. For the sources listed in Zinnwaldite (color) oldid=240199563. The first is just an approximate RGB => CMYK conversion, especially since it doesn't seem to take color space into account. The second is about the mineral. The third is about the mineral. The phrase "Zinnwaldite color" occurs because that is the raw source of an HTML document. See http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/5455 for the link to the pdf version, which clearly shows that that phrase is from a table and two different columns. The forth source is the only thing that is close, but the page that the picture comes from http://www.zerosightaccessories.com/our_forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=116&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=eb809f53d00151bbfcaf41108a524e72 makes no mention for Zinnwaldite besides in the filename of the picture, and the post it self lists them as "sun tan". Even the picture of the telephone shown does not seem to match the color shown in the infobox. PaleAqua (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bondi blue can be regarded as a shade of blue but it is not blue." If that's what you say, then it is clear that you are attempting to change the language to suit your purposes. You are doing exactly what I claimed: assigning all color names to a single point each in color space and declaring that to be the correct meaning, and using this counterfactual notion as the basis for your argument here. This is a gross WP:NPOV problem. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each color IS at a specific point in color space. Blue is at #0000FF. That is its definition for computer display. Of course, there are many different shades of blue. The web colors are based on the definitions of Red, Green, and blue as defined at three specific points in color space as the three primary colors on the color wheel. There are also specific points for each of the web colors and each of the Crayola colors. Keraunos (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as an aside, did you know, as I pointed out in the Color name article, that as a language evolves, additional color terms are added to the basic three basic color terms black, white, and red in a fixed order as a language evolves: first green and/or yellow (first one, and then the other); then blue; then brown; and finally orange, pink, purple and/or gray, in any order? ^[1] Keraunos (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC) To keep a sense of humor about this discussion, I'm sure if the research were continued, the color beige would be about 500 on the list and the color zinnwaldite would be about number 2,000 on the list! Just think how far we have advanced in color terminology in the English language by this date that we can even be talking about this!Keraunos (talk) 09:02, 25 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) 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Green Group[edit]

Fails WP:N. Lack of reliable source material from which to develop the article. -- Suntag ☼ 04:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nom is correct, there are a few articles discussing the companies works, but sources that discuss the actual company are lacking too the point where I am unable to determine the date the company was founded. - Icewedge (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a company factfile. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. This could check out factually, but as it is, unsourced, and something tells me this company isn't big enough to achieve notability here. I could be convinced otherwise, though. --Lockley (talk) 23:29, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Ricardo Sant'ana[edit]

PROD challenged by creator. He is a non-notable mid-level leader in the LDS Church. He is an "area seventy", which is not even a full-time ecclesiastical position. They work on a volunteer part-time basis; there are a few hundred in the world, and they get rotated every 5 years or so (i.e. it is not a life-tenured position). I would venture to say he's not even notable within the LDS Church. Currently, the only references in this article are to publications that are published by an entity that the church owns. (The Church News is published by Deseret Morning News, which is owned by the LDS Church.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Fails all criteria -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 05:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence in the article of notability, and no evidence to be found after searching. So definitely seems to be not notable. Austin46 (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not cite independent reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent, but not a speedy., (I think the key factor in their lack of notability is that the leadership role is volunteer and part time, not that there are several hundred; there are, after all several hundred congressmen--and that's not a life time position either.)DGG (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:24, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander A. Núñez[edit]

PROD challenged by creator. This person is a non-notable mid-level leader in the LDS Church. He is an "area seventy", which is not even a full-time ecclesiastical position. They work on a volunteer part-time basis; there are a few hundred in the world, and they get rotated every 5 years or so (i.e. it is not a life-tenured position). I would venture to say he's not even notable within the LDS Church. Currently, the only references in this article are to official publications of church or to publications that are published by an entity that the church owns. (The Church News is published by Deseret Morning News, which is owned by the LDS Church.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this article fails WP:BIO, and unless anyone else can find independent sources it definitely fails WP:V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashaman (talk • contribs) 07:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not cite independent reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:13, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel A. Lee[edit]

PROD challenged by creator. Non-notable mid-level leader in the LDS Church. He is an "area seventy", which is not even a full-time ecclesiastical position. They work on a volunteer part-time basis; there are a few hundred in the world, and they get rotated every 5 years or so (i.e. it is not a life-tenured position). I would venture to say he's not even notable within the LDS Church. Currently, the only references in this article are to publications that are published by an entity that the church owns. (The Church News is published by Deseret Morning News, which is owned by the LDS Church.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability given in the article. And searches reveal nothing about him. Austin46 (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not cite independent reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Will leave a message to user, informing him about WP:N. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:13, 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 speedy deleted by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. A biography that doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person (CSD A7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo A. Lamartine[edit]

PROD challenged by creator. Non-notable mid-level leader in the LDS Church. He is an "area seventy", which is not even a full-time ecclesiastical position. They work on a volunteer part-time basis; there are a few hundred in the world, and they get rotated every 5 years or so (i.e. it is not a life-tenured position). I would venture to say he's not even notable within the LDS Church. Currently, the only references in this article are to official church publications or to publications that are published by an entity that the church owns. (The Church News is published by Deseret Morning News, which is owned by the LDS Church.) There's also a web-link to a BYU page (BYU is owned by the LDS Church) and a non-notable family website. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to have been a spate of these non-notable "clerics" added. This is another of them. No evidence of notability inthe article and nothing to be found by searching. Austin46 (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not cite independent reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 15:44, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pita F. Hopoate[edit]

PROD challenged by creator. Article is about a non-notable mid-level leader in the LDS Church. He is an "area seventy", which is not even a full-time ecclesiastical position. They work on a volunteer part-time basis; there are a few hundred in the world, and they get rotated every 5 years or so (i.e. it is not a life-tenured position). I would venture to say he's not even notable within the LDS Church. Currently, the only references in this article are to official publications of the church or to publications that are published by an entity that the church owns. (The Church News is published by Deseret Morning News, which is owned by the LDS Church.) There is a link to a BYU Hawaii page where he's listed as an award winner; BYU Hawaii is a university owned by the LDS Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not cite independent reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 15:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:13, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Write Love On Her Arms[edit]

Every Word In The Article Is Capitalized Like This. Horribly Written, No Assertion Of notability, No Sourcing.

Delete As Nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, no apparent press coverage. ce1984 (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't hold up to WP:MUSIC. Sounds like the band themselves may be trying to promote themselves via Wikipedia to me, as well. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious promotional effort. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 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 per WP:SNOW, I don't see that this needs to be dragged on any longer. All Olympic events are considered notable. - Icewedge (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rowing at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's lightweight double sculls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rowing at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's lightweight double sculls

Article subject is way too refined and contains entirely too much detail for an encyclopedic article.

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you're singling out a single article in a series of articles for what particular reason? Why is this one more suitable for deletion than the other ones on the nav template? ((RowingAt2008SummerOlympics)) 70.51.8.158 (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a totally valid topic: and how is too much detail a reason for deletion? Admittedly, the article isn't sourced at the moment, but it can easily be done (talk to the Olympics wikiproject for help if necessary), and the refined subject is due to the impossibility of covering everything sufficiently in a single page without making the page way too long and large. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --WildCherry06 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see category:2008 Summer Olympics events, each event is generally considered notable. - Icewedge (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Olympic events are among the most prestigious in existence. They are consistently well-covered in mainstream media, and major sporting events are remembered long after the event took place, making them more than just news stories. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep partly because the nom does not mention a single violation of any policy or guideline and partly because I think deleting an article because it is too detailed is frankly ridiculous. If you think it is too narrow you could have proposed a merger. You don't need AfD for that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is the highest level of athletic competition and thus notable. No vaild re3ason for deletion is given. Edward321 (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see where the nominator is coming from, we have a giant set of articles that are mostly result tables of single sporting events that don't stand out in history and are soon forgotten by the public, and another giant set of stubs that will never grow about random athletes who competed in those events, and all of that would be best maintained in a separate wiki devoted to sport in my opinion, however, I see no reason why this particular event is singled out, and it breaks neither policies nor guidelines. Equendil Talk 14:34, 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 keep (non-admin closure). Per WP:SNOW. Ruslik (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Wednesday[edit]

Contested prod; completely unsourced, poorly written, no assertion of notability.

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The movie is a notable bollywood movie, with multiple notable actors (Anupam Kher, Naseeruddin Shah, Jimmy Shergill). It has been reviewed by multiple notable newspaper and media sources like Times of India (4½ stars), Rediff (3½ stars) and CNN-IBN (4 stars). IMDB has been listed as one of the film's sources, though certainly more can be added. I contest both the doubts on articles neutrality as well as it reading like a review. It is a decent stub article, though not poorly written as claimed by the nominator. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have improved a article a bit. Now the plot is mostly comprehensive and flows better. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and a WP:TROUT to the nominator. Please do a few quick searches first, before nominating for AfD. A quick googlenews search[29] shows that there is a very substantial amount of in-depth and specific coverage of the film by independent sources. The article needs to be expanded and improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that trout slap. RockManQ (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Being unsourced, poorly written, or having no assertion of notability is not a reason to delete, as even a very cusory search found plenty of notability. Tag it for improvement, sure. But deletion? Nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Just added section with 7 reviews to cinch notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unsourced and poorly written articles are candidates for cleanup, not deletion. RockManQ (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You should know why. This movie was critically acclaimed and marks Kher and Shah's return together after 12 years. Besides, what is so un-notable about this movie, that it is being proposed for deletion, while an aticle like Dhol remains? If this is not notable, there are 25 times the number of Hollywood movies, that can be deleted. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep.well sourced and well written and critically acclaimed...--Comet styles 07:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: A very popular movie. Kensplanet (talk) 15:49, 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UniquePhones[edit]

not notable, likely a site set up by the company to cover their shady reputation -- see article history Modefier (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV article about non-notable company which appears to fail the significant coverage criteria for verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See abundant coverage in reliable sources at this Google News archive search. --Eastmain (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Eastmain. Enough sources there with specific coverage of the company. Nsk92 (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs clean up. We66er (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Company does not seem to be notable and seems to be affected by POV. LordKenTheGreat (talk) 10:45, 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 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - seems to meet the notability criteria with mutliple RS (per Eastman) mentioning their IPhone on/off stuff. However - if this was a person, we'd be saying BLP1E applied, as all the coverage relates solely to unlocking iPhones and their claim to be able to do so; there's apparently no coverage of other aspects of the company. So, are they really notable, or should we consider it's 'notability by reflection' from the iPhone. Like I said, the company notability rules don't consider that, so they meet the letter of the rules. But not the spirit. MadScot (talk) 04:48, 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) 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Olsen Lear[edit]

This article is about a non-notable person, and I cannot find anything about him that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. LowLevelMason (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google gave just 65 hits, 8 among them are from Wikipedia. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for total non-notability, self-promotion, poor writing skills. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur, not notable. MadScot (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. We66er (talk) 05:49, 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 merge to Warhammer 40,000 species. Note that once this merge is completed, Hrud should probably be turned into a disambiguation page between this subject and Hrud, Poland. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrud[edit]

Non-notable aspect of a fictional universe. Written mostly in a in-universe style that has not been changed since the article's creation in 2004. No coverage (let alone substantial coverage) of this subject in third-party sources (i.e., works not published by the game's publisher) is either cited or likely. Most of the article also appears to be fan WP:OR: "There is speculation that ..." -- If the article is deleted, Hrud, Poland should be moved to this title. Sandstein 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Warhammer 40,000 species. That article only contains a very brief mention of the Hrud, so adding the pertinent parts to it would be a help. Definitely not notable on their own. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 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, TravellingCari 02:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge as usual--though I point out there is in fact an independently published reference. I suspect that references would probably also apply to most of the articles on this fictional universe. By our standard rule, when a second such book is published, they will all become notable. DGG (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge including nice RS as above. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 24 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) 21:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rankopedia[edit]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:BIO. No evidence of notability in the article, and no reliable source cited. The only outside source cited in the article is a blog, and my Google search only yielded one mention in an independent, reliable source, http://www.nbc10.com/news/14023772/detail.html. Mosmof (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Mosmof (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only source was an unreliable blog. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, 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) 21:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadji and the Turbans[edit]

Appears to be a bit off-key in regard to WP:MUSIC. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can find no hits on Google News and the Google hits I see are selling the albums, not independent reliable sources. - Dravecky (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:18, 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hammartun Lower Secondary School[edit]

The article does not define any reason for notability, and my attempts to find information on this subject were unsuccessful. If our Norwegian friends can provide positive assistance to confirm notability, that would be most helpful. Otherwise, I am hard pressed to support the article's presence here. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not show notability and only has one source which is the official site. Schuym1 (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this news search on Sesam found 22 hits for Hammartun ungdomsskole. This includes such events as the opening of the refurbished school, and this article that reached the national newspaper Aftenposten, concerning the theft of a key. Had this been a company, there would be enough for a keep, per WP:ORG. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school. As can be seen here, the school educates to age 16 (Grade 10) which makes it a high school. Coupled with several non-trivial sources that meet WP:N and over 165 years of history makes it a clear keep. TerriersFan (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school. For more information on my opinion about the inherent notability of high schools, see my project-space essay Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), and be sure to also read the talk page, which I think you will find interesting. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I see one weak potential alum (translated), but there's not a peep on news.google.no, although there is a slight amount of news coverage (translated example about doing well in testing) From the school website the only potentially notable item is that on the school's 100th anniversary King Harald V of Norway and Queen Sonja of Norway (at the time prince/princess) attended & celebrated (kastet glans) (translated), the majority of the Norwegian Ghits I checked appear to be directory entries only. – Zedla (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be plentiful sources on Google but most are in Norwegian and the translations don't always seem to pick up all the detail. There is for instance a page here with details of the tender for the rebuilding of the school. A lack of immediately accessible internet sources for a school in a country where English is not the first language is not a reason for a deletion. The available sources clearly suggest that the school is notable. The King and Queen of Norway would not be tempted to visit a school on its 100th anniversary unless the school was notable. No doubt WikiProject Norway will be able to help with expansion in due course. Dahliarose (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: Fails notability. More a middle school than a high school. Also, the article is content-free. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hammartun is a secondary school. As discussed above it takes children up to the age of 16. Middle schools normally only take children up to the age of 13 or so. Dahliarose (talk) 23:42, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Oswald Griffin[edit]

Couldn't find any reliable sources to confirm notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sorry to say at this time. I did find a few references to case law involving Mr. Griffin, as shown here [30]. However, I could find no references to the claim of Notability as the first African American to hold the position of Chief Legal Counsel for the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles. If those references can be found, more than happy to change my opinion to Keep. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 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, TravellingCari 02:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has a few decent claims of notability and there are some sources that mention him in relation to his professional work, but there are none that provide any biographical information really. - Icewedge (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Peacock (talk) 14:37, 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) 04:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arik Bender[edit]

Prod removed with no reason given. (Auto?)biography of non notable journalist that lacks reliable outside sources Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete article's subject appears to fail the notability and verifiability criteria. Article doesn't have an assertion of importance/significance (CSD:A7) and was tagged as such until the article's creator removed it without even an attempt to address the concerns. Speedy delete A7 if appropriate or if someone sees an assertion that I haven't yet a simple delete as non-notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Screams NN, but the HE interwiki stands, and the super-admins who control that wiki are not tolerant of cruft. So apparently, he's somewhat known in Israel. --Shuki (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 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, TravellingCari 02:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Just being a journalist or being "known" doesn't qualify as notable. There is nothing stand-out about this person. No awards won, nothing special at all. In fact 400-ish hits on google is on the low side for any professional journalist - and on inspection, nothing among them to merit inclusion. Austin46 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Austin46. VG ☎ 03:20, 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. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Rane[edit]

Has been tagged for notability and no-one has responded. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep.~~ Needs work but the sources cited in the article appear to already establsh a passable case of notability. A quote from an article in the Times of India[31]:"Musicologist and composer Ashok Ranade is one of the most respected names in music in India." The claim re having won the National Award in India also seem to check out although better sources would be preferable:[32][33]. Another article in Times of India mentioning him getting something called the Thane Gunijan award:[34]. Nsk92 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Neutral for the moment. The first ref I quoted[35] appears to be about another person, with a similar name, Ashok Ranade. The fact that this ref is quoted in the article is a problematic sign. Nsk92 (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided includes a short biography of 3 different people: Ashok Ranada, Mandakini Trivedi and ashok Rane (at the bottom)-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 12:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question of identity does need to be cleared up, especially about the award. but I point out that failing to improve an article is not reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 22:59, 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, TravellingCari 02:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does make some attempts at claiming notability, but doesn't back them up with any sourcing. For example, if the "national award" is really a big deal, sourcing it should be no problem. It doesn't help that his is apparently a really common name: Google brings unrelated stories about a jail superintendant, a judge, and others. My gut feeling is the core of the article is probably true. However, sourcing is obviously going to be a problem. And I don't think we'd generally have an article on an American or British person of similar notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe even speedy as WP:COPYVIO. The bulk of the text seems a direct copy, with paras sorted, of His bio page here. If the article is gutted for the copyvio and boiled down the actual notable activities - which are the books and the TV series (unidentified!) which then get specific reviews referenced, it might survive. But right now, major problems. MadScot (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though he does not seem to have been someone who has enjoyed exceptional fame, he still qualifies for an article as per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria as well as Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography. I was able to find enough reliable sources:[36],[37],[38].Copyright violations could be resolved by rewriting the article-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 12:48, 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) 21:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Diet (Guns N' Roses song)[edit]

Non-notable song, as evidenced by the description in the article. Corvus cornix_talk 01:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A song that has never been released. Schuym1 (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did it rank? Nope. Was it ever even released? Nope. So, is this notable? Don't think so. Cliff smith ^talk 05:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:19, 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 a hoax. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharkboy and Lavagirl 2: Planet Parasites[edit]

A Google search for "Sharkboy and Lavagirl 2: Planet Parasites" and "Shark Boy and Lava Girl 2: Planet Parasites" returned zero hits. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I was going to put a speedy deletion tag on this) Speedy delete, vandalism, hoax. Corvus cornix_talk 01:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Vandalism/hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:51, 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) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone and iPod touch homebrew installers[edit]

This article should be on wiki, it documents a factual set of applications. It is far less contentious than may other articles. I do not feel that it should be censored out on spurious grounds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.145.127 (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unsourced original research -- nothing worth salvaging. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N (and WP:WEB when applicable). Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: simply non-notable. If we let that article there, it might become a magnet for advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, simply not notable pretty much describes what is happening here. RockManQ (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or perhaps just a comment. I noticed AppTapp redirects here. AppTapp (the Installer.app link) was the first iphone app installer, received a lot of tech press coverage, and was well known among software developers and v 1.0 iphone users. For that reason I believe it passes WP:WEB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashaman (talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you back up the "tech press coverage" claim? If so, then it would probably pass WP:WEB. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:24, 24 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 as Merge. Schuym1 (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC) I have merged most of them. I will merge the rest of them tomorrow. I merged the rest! Schuym1 (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Schuym1 (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burned (The Hardy Boys Undercover Brothers)[edit]

Merge all to Undercover Brothers. Whether this most recent incarnation of the classic Hardy Boys franchise becomes as popular as the original remains to be seen. It's not necessarily true that Burned will have the same impact that The Tower Treasure did, nor is every title in the 80+ year old Hardy Boys universe automatically notable. Mandsford (talk) 01:27, 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.