< 16 July	18 July >

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

The result was boldly redirected Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1's… and Then Some[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Number 1's… and Then Some

Only one source. Its single is in the Top 20, but I haven't been able to verify the track listing at all, leading me to think that the current tracklist is WP:OR/WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the list of songs came from the only source, but it's not finalized yet. Anyway, this article should be deleted until more sources are found. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete if it's going to be recreated eventually anyway? Redirect would be a much better idea, just like Ten Pound Hammer did with Justin Moore (album), which i finally found an official track listing on. Deleting it is pointless. This is like cutting hair, and it grows back. Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, CMT now has the album listed. Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Caldorwards4. Also, the album still has a while to go before being released. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just redirect, rather than delete. Deleting it is like cutting hair, which grows back, just like the album article will come back. The album will be released in less than two months, which is close enough to have an article. Ryanbstevens (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude...your hair must be real long. :) --Wolfer68 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My hair isn't that long. I'm just saying that deleting this category is similiar to cutting hair. (Maybe i'll put a picture of myself on my user page later, if that's allowed.) Ryanbstevens (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected it. That's the best solution. Trust me. Ryanbstevens (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources. Please tell me that that will do something. Ryanbstevens (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect - A little referenced material here, but not enough... and the album release is pretty far off to be creating an article. And saying that just because "the album article will come back" doesn't change anything - its okay if it comes back in a few weeks when its become more notable, but as for now its not there yet. CloversMallRat (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we just redirect? Ryanbstevens (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- consensus in this discussion has defined the notability of the subject. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benin–Russia relations[edit]

v t e Bilateral AfD arguments
Delete	D1 Just another random pairing of countries with no significant relationship D2 No independent sources are given and none show up on a Google search apart from sports results D3 None of the sources discusses the relationship itself, just random barrel-scrapings on trivial events like treaties, state visits etc. D4 These are two obscure little countries in Africa or Asia or Australia or somewhere like that. Their relations cannot possibly be notable.
Keep	K1 A Google search with the names of the two countries shows many results K2 Since being nominated the article has been expanded with several reliable independent sources K3 All bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable K4 The article has a picture of the heads of state meeting - if Wikimedia accepted the picture, it must be notable
Comment	C1 You clearly do not understand my point - please read what I said C2 Your argument is irrelevant - check WP:POLICY. C3 My argument is entirely based on WP:POLICY - read it. C4 Bandy is an important sport in several countries, and competing in the world Bandy championships is enough to establish a notable relationship.
Please cite your arguments by number in the discussion below If you do not find an appropriate argument in one of the lists above, please edit this template (click "e" at the top left) and add your argument

Non-notable bilateral embassies, only few searches from Google news. [1] ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 23:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications WP:N is met. Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual notability is evident. Not even a junior water polo match. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a history lesson should be required before nominating such articles, because it is getting just a tad bit ridiculous. Whilst there might not be a junior water polo match, there is the fact that the USSR was Kerekou's major ally in the international arena...Marxist-Leninism and all that. My f'ing god, whilst it ain't no junior water polo match, I do believe it is a notable relation? --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article were Benin-Soviet Union relations, I'd probably vote keep. But it's not. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Russavia's history lesson. I also note that the Google News search linked by the nominator only covers the last month. A more considered Google News search finds a lot more, with the very first of the hits being an article in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Soviet Union Plays Growing Dahomey Role": quite obviously direct coverage of the article subject. Thousands more potential sources are available from Google Books and Google Scholar. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, why not stick the sources you find into the article as external links - makes it easier to expand the article. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources. The relationships of Russia with essentially any country will be notable, given that it was soviet policy to spread their influence as widely as possible. DGG (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Russavia. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
K2. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although current relations might not quite squeak by D1, the Soviet-era relations were pretty important beyond the scope of mere bilateral diplomacy. Having said that, the article should reflect this. — AjaxSmack 03:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a valid article, and could definately be expanded. However, I think we should keep material on USSR foreign relations in articles separate from Russian foreign relations. --Soman (talk)
Comment If people are going to vote "delete" because Russia != Soviet Union (this is not the first bilateral relations article I've seen this point raised), why not instead vote to rename the article "Benin–Soviet Union relations"? The idea is to vote delete only if the material clearly fails all reasonable tests; otherwise, let's try to find a way to rescue as much as possible. -- llywrch (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least rename, as per Llywrch.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:24, July 20, 2009 (UTC)
Keep — a notable subject of inter-state relations (scale large enough) covered in acceptable way. --ssr (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Relations go back to the Cold War. Scanlan (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Easton (musician)[edit]

Non-notable musician, fails WP:ENTERTAINER and around over 793,000 Google search hits. [2] ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 23:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Candy Harlots which is the band that he founded. It's not clear that Candy Harlots is notable either but if it is, then redirecting would be the right thing to do. If they aren't, the redirect will be deleted if/when the Cany Harlots article is deleted. I could not find any reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Esradekan, the redirect might not be all that useful. I still think a redirect would be okay, but I am not adverse to deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. I personally don't see the point in a redirect due to the non-plausible nature of the title as a search term. FYI: Candy Harlots passes WP:MUSIC#C5 for multiple releases on Virgin Records. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 04:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:MUSIC. — Satori Son 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc. And if kept it would require more rework to remove the vanispamcruft. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tan | 39 15:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folk Christianity[edit]

Article is entirely original research. My research on the term indicates that it is a term that is not clearly defined. Explanations vary from any Christian church that mixes Christianity with various things (folk culture, animism, superstitions, etc). Therefore, I don't think that the article can be rescued by rewriting with proper references. The article basically synthesizes other ideas into a well written essay. See "Folk Christianity is" and "Folk Christianity" Google results. --Trödel 23:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.
Delete. I stumbled across this article a few days ago and dug around for some sources but came up empty. There are a few sources that used the term in a passing manner, but nothing to satisfy WP:RS. This article reads like an essay; the "bibliography" section at the end with sources that do not appear to cover the topic in detail seem to back up the notion that this is little more than an original research project that someone has chosen to publish here. Shereth 00:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plain Google web searches are pretty useless for articles about subjects outside of pop culture or current events. Google Books and Google Scholar searches show that this is a very well-defined term, which comes under the general subject of Syncretism. The article on syncretism already has a strong bias towards Christianity, and is getting quite long, so it would be best for this to be a separate article. I would urge those with an interest in improving our coverage of this topic to work towards making Folk Christianity a summary style sub-article of Syncretism. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The books you reference define this term differently; therefore, I don't think it is yet a defined concept that could be included as a Wikipedia article. It is defined as: the Christianity practiced by a conquered people, Christianity as most people live it, a term to overcome the the division of beliefs into orthodox and unorthodox, the impact of superstition on Christianity as practiced by certain geographical Christian groups, defining Christianity in cultural terms without reference to the theologies and histories. Interestingly, despite your claim that a google search is useless outside pop culture or current events, my understanding has not been deepened by using your search suggestion, but rather it seems even more diversly defined, while inclusive of the definition that my brief survey had previously revealed. This is most likely because I spent more time reviewing the books you referenced to see if I was missing something. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case and I still think the term is not well defined, is used rarely, and should not have an article. --Trödel 23:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, this looks like an acknowledgment that there are verifiable, authoritative RS for this topic. If the RS differ from what the article says that would be an argument to edit the article, to make it correspond to the RS -- not deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable subject & there are references. Problems can be fixed by editing. "folk religion" is an accepted topic, and it can obviously be divided by religion.DGG (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as above... Geo Swan (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; ruthlessly prune the OR and there is a stub of RS material - which could be and should be developed. Springnuts (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Springnuts and DGG. There are at least the basics for an article here, and there seems to be notability. The content may well be poor but that's a different matter and not necessarily something relevant to this discussion. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger: 633 hits on Google Books, 285 on Scholar. Many reliable sources. Useful topic is a nice bonus rather than a reason against deletion, but no reasons for deletion remain unchallenged. Anarchangel (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cowboy Mounted Shooting. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single Action Mounted Shooting[edit]

No evidence that this association/society is notable. No non-local coverage, and local coverage is mostly in the context of mentioning local events. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, into Cowboy Mounted Shooting. I proposed this merger yesterday, before this nomination for deletion. In my opinion Single Action Mounted Shooting does meet the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, since it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and so the article should not be deleted. But, I believe the general sentiment of several editors who have been editing the Single Action Mounted Shooting article is that it should be merged, which would mean that the article will end up as a redirect anyway. — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Cowboy Mounted Shooting is a real sport, and is of more than local interest. I recommended the original merge with the Cowboy Action Shooting article, which contained a subsection on mounted shooting. The merge proposal seemed to draw absolutely no interest from anyone other than the lead editor of the SAMS article, who opposed the merge. So, to be fair, there were only two people who really cared at all. And I don't really care all that much, so it sort of died from lack of interest. But I think this is an elegant solution to the notability problem. Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single Action Mounted Shooting is a corporation's name. you are going to redirect a corporation's NAME into a SPORT website? the Sport is called Cowboy Mounted Shooting and it already has an article that I created with content from this article. This corporation's article is of no value. I already created and merged the content to the new Cowboy Mounted Shooting article. If THAT article is to be merged - I have no opinion on the matter. This Article's remaining organization notes are unimportant. HowesR1 (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It is not unheard of to have an org redirect to the type of activity the org is involved in. Contents of the org article that might be useful can be merged into the activity article ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either solution works for me. I favor keeping the redirect just for ease of searching should others not know which name to use. Montanabw^(talk) 22:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @967 · 22:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Lee Power[edit]

unsourced BLP, non notable extra, no secondary sources can be found to backup claims made. Fails WP:ENT BigDunc 22:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —BigDunc 22:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with contributors. No sources, ref, nothing substantial in google search. Tree Karma (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Lee-Power is an actor from the UK . He is an Equity member and a member of Spotlight. Christopher is also a UK author.”[3][4] Please do not delete his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etonlee40 (talk • contribs) 20:24, July 18, 2009

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Popovič[edit]

Delete: fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GS gives h index = 5, top cites 41,21, rest in single figures. It hardly seems enough, but I am not familiar with the field of linguistics. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I've found what look to be several reliable secondary sources about him and have added them to the article. A conference in his honor ten years after his death suggests he probably passes WP:PROF #1, and he's described nontrivially in two encyclopedias and a scholarly memorial article so I think he may well pass WP:BIO directly. Re Xxanthippe's searches: Google scholar is probably not the right place to look for mid-20th-century central European literary criticism. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the risk of being inaccurately accused of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I would say that this article subject is as notable as the latest folk-death-metal-trip-hop-lounge band that has had a couple of reviews at http://www.folk-death-metal-trip-hop-lounge.com and Midsville News. Let's keep focused on deleting the unencyclopedic subjects rather than having a dumbed-down Google-mirror encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on its own merits, the standards for each subject area can well be different. This meets the established WP:PROF criteria. DGG (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just respectfully like to point out to my fellow editors that it seems to me that keeping unsourced, somewhat incoherent, WP:OR-driven pages as this one was at the time the AFD was initiated and making no effort to improve them for years is a good way to create worthless mirror sites that clutter up the 'Net. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right that the status at the time was questionable--but you could have dealt with it by following WP:BEFORE--which is not a requirement, but ought to be. This AfD shows why. DGG (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All things considered. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. In addition to the evidence above, has at least one edited book/volume, The nature of translation: Essays on the theory and practice of literary translation, currently in more than 290 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. It all adds up to suggest that the subject meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Maghoma[edit]

removal of prod, also player fails athlete having never played a pro game. Govvy (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable soccer player. --Carioca (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate when/if he become notable. Giant Snowman 11:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fail WP:ATH as he hasn't played in a fully-pro league/competition yet. Recreate if and when he does. --Jimbo^[online] 13:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirected Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belisarius Productions[edit]

After a successful merge proposal, the contents of this stub page about his film company have been merged into Donald Bellisario. Freedomlinux (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bodie, California. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miners Union Cemetery[edit]

Does not establish notability, there are no notable burials. Patchy1Talk To Me! 22:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing including to indicate notability. -Falcon8765 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bodie, California, since this article doesn't say much other than that there's a cemetery. Its town (Bodie, California) is a National Historic Landmark, so the ghost town is clearly important. The cemetery is probably a contributing property to the district. (On the other hand, since the article really only contains one or two sentences of note, the "merge/redirect" is perfunctory; I wouldn't object to a deletion.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect per Elkman. A reference would be nice, if the sentence about the cenotaph is moved over. TheFeds 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- and we'll see you in October, Resolute! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Seabrook[edit]

ice hockey player that has yet to play professionally. Fails WP:ATHLETE ccwaters (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hasn't played professionally or won a notable amateur award. Can be re-created if/when either happens. Patken4 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. I'll likely be undeleting this article in October when he does make his professional debut, but until that point, he fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or the hockey project's notability guidelines. Reso lute 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable junior player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Can be recreated when and if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. -Djsasso (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When he plays a pro game or does something notable, article can be recreated. Otherwise, fails notability guidlines. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Conceded this discusion generated little input, but no request for keep. Consensus for deletion. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevan Ohtsji[edit]

Unnotable person. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Most listed rolls are ridiculously minor and entirely unsourced - just taken from IMDB and a Wikia. Found one or two interviews with him, but not enough to be the significant coverage needed to meet WP:N or WP:BIO. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines Chzz ► 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7. Malinaccier (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longrim[edit]

Contested PROD. Non-notable fictional content, fails WP:ONEDAY. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per WP:MADEUP; WP:COI; WP:FICTION. -Falcon8765 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 . The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trading competition[edit]

Appears to be a thinly-veiled promotional attempt in violation of WP:SOAP, consisting wholly of assertions not supported (and largely unsupportable to V and RS standards. Author appears to be creating a number of very similar articles (such as Financial gaming, also a present candidate for deletion) for the apparent purpose of promoting related websites. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Financial gaming, although the to and from of such a merge is unclear. Wikify and chop out the filler and external links to commercial sites. The subject is a common enough occurance that it should be possible to find sources in the process of merging. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy. Essentially the same content as Financial games (AfD discussion), Financial gaming (AfD discussion), Trading games (AfD discussion). —Korath (Talk) 20:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Financial betting seems to be the currently-least-objectionable article in this walled garden (though I've been fooled before), so maybe redirect there. —Korath (Talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Camp Rock#Sequel. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Rock 2: The Final Jam[edit]

PROD deleted, redirects to main article undone. Nothing here that is not already in Camp Rock#Sequel. Only info is passing mentions and press releases. Filming has not started so does not meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films for article yet. NrDg 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is true, and has sources to back it up. And there are many things here that aren't already in Camp Rock#Sequel, only the information is in Camp Rock#Sequel. And they are many films that haven't begun production yet and are still there. This article isn't a hoax and is definetly a notable film coming out in only one year with a notable cast, and some new members. This does meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films, and there is no reason to delete. GreenBayPackersfan09 (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' Unsourced as usual. Wait until Disney actually announces the darned thing takes place in a source like Variety, not a blog or someone making up bollocks on IMDB. Also highly unlikely that they would end a film series two movies in. Nate • (chatter) 07:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has a primary source press release. The issue, as I see it, is WP:NFF - Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. The article is mostly filler and expectations created from the press release.--NrDg 14:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Camp Rock#Sequel I was mislead by a version of the article vandalized with all reliable sources removed. There's not enough here for its own article yet though and there's the usual possibility of the title changing before all is said and done. Nate • (chatter) 03:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Camp Rock until more information in reliable sources becomes available. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 23:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Camp Rock until more reliable information is available and at least until the movie is in production for a while. The movie doesn't even start production until the end of the summer.--Rockin56 (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Lemuel[edit]

Seems just like any other doctor; no significant claim of notability or coverage in third-party sources. Creator removed prod. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Flunks WP:BIO notability standards, looks like a promotional CV in violation of WP:NOTLINKEDIN. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability? Seems just like any other doctor - reads like an advert. Freedomlinux (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a resume service. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This is a chiropractor very inportent, he is one of the hundred Dr. to get the honer of the C.C.W.P worldwide, i will edit it and try to make it to your expecteacions. I am also trying to make the palmcare page, the line of clinics that Dr.Lemuel.Pedro thy master (talk) 9:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete relist when improved. -Falcon8765 (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Transparent vanity/promotion. JFW | T@lk 14:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Looks like an important doctor to me so I think it be better to leave it how it is..Pedro the big boss (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Account blocked for sockpuppetry Icestorm815 • Talk 19:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This seems a very notable Dr. and we dont have many chiropractors in this site, plus if you don not ike it edit it.PQMAM (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Account blocked for sockpuppetry Icestorm815 • Talk 19:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious promo of non-notable chiropractor. The poor spelling is typical of many chiropractors, but this is so far out that it's likely a youthful admirer or child of the chiropractor. Brangifer (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete The errors of spelling have been fixed and he is a very notable chiropractor.Pedro thy master (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete i have deleted the facebook and linkidin of the page so it is not in violation of WP:NOTLINKEDIN.Pedro thy master (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete i fixed and took off the page the vanity/promotion.User:Pedro thy Pedro thy master (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work you're putting into this, but you're misunderstanding the basis for this proposal. The quality of the article isn't the issue; it's whether the subject himself merits mention in an encyclopedia. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESkog is right. Wikipedia is not to be misused for promotion. You are lucky you didn't get indef blocked for your sockpuppetry and you're still on very thin ice. I suggest you return to editing other matters. Right now you have already managed to give this particular chiropractor some bad publicity here by this attempt at promotion. Brangifer (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you think i`m giving publicity, but to me it is not publicity i`m just doing an artical about a chiropractor, who is the owner, of a very good company, and i was planing to make an artical about the notable figurs in chiropractic, and don`t you dare to tell me what to edit, i now i`m in thin ice but it is my eleccion so leave me alone BullRangifer, i rather that ESkog tells me what he thinks, and thank you for at least saining thati have edit it ESkog, i will do anything for this artical to stay in wikipedia. Pedro thy master (talk • contribs) 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i will do anything for this artical to stay in wikipedia - this is the problem right here. If you have a personal interest in keeping this article around, you need to set that aside and try to see our point of view - not every doctor is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, of course, and we feel that this guy misses that mark. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t have personal feelings, and i see your point of view but see it from mine, he is a great doctor and i think he dose make the mark. Pedro thy master (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates according to community-consensus standards of notability. The fact that you consider this doctor notable does not make him notable for the purposes of this encyclopædia, and your insistent approach runs afoul of WP:MPOV, which you may want to read to understand why you're encountering such resistance here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The main issue has not been settled: Are there reliable sources to establish notability? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race 16[edit]

Not a Crystal Ball, not nearly enough information to justify article (there aren't even third-party sources) Guy0307 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as right now, CBS announced it last month and I created the article. Is also not case in WP:CRYSTALBALL, because it quotes "APPLICATION PROCEDURE AND ELIGIBILITY DATES" for dates to applied. [5] ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 03:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to preserve edit history. Following WP:NFF as a guideline, it has not completed principle photography, and there is no official solid airdate. Plastikspork (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 21:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there isn't really much known about Season 16 to even warrant an article yet. Just because they are openly asking for candidates for a new season doesn't mean such a season will go ahead. Several things like budget, filming, depending on how well season 15 does may come into play. I'm not saying it won't happen just we have no solid airdates for Season 16, no solid filming dates, everything listed is just speculation. Also is there even an official article saying its being renewed?(Beyond the casting form..) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.13.121 (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC) — 82.16.13.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment The Amazing Race 13 was also nominated for deletion during 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike and there was no third-party source in that article. It was also a speculation during The Amazing Race 12 was scheduled to aired during that article's creation. Means, the IP is a single purpose account. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 20:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe it is, but it's not a crime. All the IP did is comment here. Remember WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Regarding the Amazing Rce 13 article, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy0307 (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment from The Amazing Race 13 AFD: This isn't a movie, it is talking about reality television series airing next year, even TAR15 is now currently filming. There would still be an article on this never completed season, and really wish the editors could raise the talk page. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 21:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep. This is the Primetime Emmy Award winning show's 16th seasons. And the application deadline has already past. Kingturtle (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being an Emmy Award winner doesn't change the fact that it fails WP:N, WP:NFF, and nothing is known about the series. And where is the application deadline mentioned in policy? Guy0307 (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - Official documents are present to show that this 16th season of a notable television show is going to be produced. It should only be deleted if CBS or the producers are explicitly shown to have pulled the plug of the 16th season. Otherwise, it should happen and the article, having already been labelled as one about a future television show should be retained. DanielTAR (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if it's going to happen! The 2056 Summer Olympics are going to happen unless something catastrophic is going to happen. Guy0307 (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But are there any articles or documents in circulation that shows that it will happen? TAR16 has these articles and it has been a norm for seasons to be produced once these application forms have been released and I definitely don't foresee TAR16 being any different. DanielTAR (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely don't foresee 2056 Summer Olympics being any different either, but that doesn't mean that a "cast list" and "precise airdate" has been released. Note that a redirect would preserve all the edit history and allow the article to be rapidly reconstructed once a premiere date has been released. Plastikspork (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There probably is, but let's not get into that. One non-RS, first-party source does not make it notable, it's not enough. Guy0307 (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources say that it will exist. I also disagree with the comparison between this and the 2056 Summer Olympics. Shappy ^talk 20:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love the show, but in all reality, CBS has not officially announced it, and while an app form and casting calls indicate they may be vying for it, until its confirmed, no article. (If it were more regular like Survivor, knowing there would be a show in the spring following the upcoming fall one, sure, but CBS buys TAR seasons on the fly, so we won't know until it is given.) --MASEM (t) 05:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you're saying but how do you gauge whether TAR is "regular" or not? As far as past trends have concerned, if application forms are out, there has not been a time where a season has been canceled or not produced, even if seasons may not be produced regularly every two seasons. To me, that warrants TAR to be considerable as regular. DanielTAR (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus is to merge, but people can't seem to agree on the target. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cataclysm (Dragonlance)[edit]

This is a plot element in Dragonlance. It has no notability outside of that fictional universe. The article is written from an entirely in-universe perspective and makes no attempt to assert any notability in the real-world. This violates WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. You can find a more detailed summary of the relevant policy here. Savidan 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an apparently notable spinout of Dragonlance or, failing that, merge the content back into an appropriate dragonlance article in the process of cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Jclemens. Rather than repeat myself, assume I feel the same way about all the Dragonlance and other articles nominated here. BOZ (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable fictional event found in Dragonlance books, games, cartoons, and comics. Dream Focus 23:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dragonlance timeline. This seems to be important enough to the game world even if it isn't really well sourced or out-of-universe, so a merge seems like the best solution to me unless more, reliable, sources can be found to firmly establish notability. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ into Dragonlance timeline. With no out-of-universe context, the information in the article serves just as well in Dragonlance timeline as it does in its own article. McJeff (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Weak Keep - On further reflection, the event The Cataclysm isn't just notable to the timeline, but integral to it. Worth a spin-out. McJeff (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete as this unsourced article contravenes basic Wikipedia policies for article content, as it is comprised unverifiable original research that is all plot summary. There is no evidence to suggest that the Cataclysm is in any way a notable event in the fictional canon of Dragonlance, and arguements based on subjective judgement that this articles should be kept fail to address the issue that it does contain any encyclopedic coverage at all.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably merge as Drilnoth recommended. The cataclysm is not a minor plot element as a trilogy of books (Kingpriest trilogy) and an anthology of short stories covers it, and several other novels (including the original War of the Lance trilogy) have the cataclysm as an important if past event. Would vote to keep it if coverage were beyond plot, but at any rate it is such a significant part of the Dragonlance universe that deletion is a too drastic step. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Time of the Twins. I call contributors' attention to the AfD nomination of Blood War, which has attached to it nominations for deletion of the Dragonlance articles Lost Wars, War of the Lance, Dwarfgate Wars, Chaos War, and Blue Lady's War. Anarchangel (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Driftin' Outlaw Band[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Driftin' Outlaw Band

Band does not appear to meet notability for music. Also, there's no evidence via google that this band exists. Same for record label, records, etc. Throw in an absurd history [6] and it seems like a hoax as well. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unable to find any references to establish notability per WP:BAND. --Muchness (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fair Deal (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 04:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Mullins[edit]

fails WP:POLITICIAN - simply being a candidate is not enough. I have searched for evidence of references that would allow him to pass under WP:BIO and can only find things about other projects which mention him in passing. Ironholds (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsuccessful candidate in the June local elections, and can't find any substantial coverage of the subject in his own right. A few mentions in passing, but nothing that would bring the article as a biographical article over the notabilty threshold. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Someone who is a unsuccessful candidate for local office, is not notable. Snappy (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local councillors are rarely notable and he didn't get elected. Valenciano (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7-11-doubles[edit]

WP:MADEUP Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a drinking game - and based on precedent, even if it wasn't falling under WP:MADEUP, there's still WP:N to figure in to it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wp:WHYDOESWIKIPEDIANEEDTHISCRAP - or at least Wp:NFT, Wp:N and Wp:OR. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy and the Boingers[edit]

In-universe, unsourced since 3/08, no hope of being sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonable spinout of notable comic strip. Failing that, Merge into Bloom County. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have a t-shirt with them on it. They have been published in books, and throughout a long running extremely notable comic strip, and have been featured on multiple bits of merchandise. Dream Focus 23:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs cleanup, but well-known fictional band with enough existence independent of comic strip (merchandising as mentioned above etc) to make it a reasonable subject of inquiry. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the first time I remember seeing merchandising used as a keep reason. I have a t-shirt with my old basic training unit on it, but they don't have an article either (and they are real). A redirect wouldn't bother me. This should be no more than a section of the Bloom County article, not a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merchandising is insufficient; needs significant coverage in published sources. Savidan 17:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. withdrawn by nom. DGG (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Conroy[edit]

Contested prod (tag removed from article creator without reason) about an individual that does not seem to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Individual very much does seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN, to be specific the part that says: "People who have held ... first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature." The Massachusetts House of Representatives is precisely that. Valenciano (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Member of a state legislature? Keep. He wins WP:POLITICIAN. Crafty (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sadly, that passes as notable. I believe that standard is much too low. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I withdraw the nomination. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Sherley[edit]

Only claim to fame is that he wrote one song for Johnny Cash, which appears on the Folsom Prison album. No reliable sources found for Glen at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did find this, and mentions of Sherley here, here, here, here, etc. So it's wrong to say that no sources exist. There's probably additional material to be found in old newspapers. Zagalejo^^^ 19:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm getting that myself. "Verifiable" does not necessarily mean "on the internet"--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added to the "early life" section based on one of those book sources. It appears that there are sufficient sources for the subject to meet the general notability guideline. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. Overall consensus seems broadly in favour of keeping at least some of this content somewhere, but there's no solid decision as to how and where. It appears to me that consolidating these into an article covering Blind Harry's various reports would be a logical next step; but it's an editorial decision - there isn't enough agreement in this discussion for me to pull some kind of binding AfD merge closure out of nowhere. ~ mazca ^talk 13:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Loudoun Hill (1296), Battle of Earnside and Battle of Elcho Park[edit]

Dubious historical material. PatGallacher (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these articles for deletion for similar reasons:

We have had some problems recently with a user who was eventually banned for adding unsourced or poorly sourced material about the life of William Wallace. Eventually I went through all the articles in the category "Battles of the Wars of Scottish Independence", if in doubt checking them against Peter Traquair's "Freedom's Sword". The bulk appear to be legit, although some of them refer to rather small skirmishes. However these 3, created by this user, are likely fictional, they are probably a regurgitation of material from Blind Harry who is not regarded as a reliable source. Two are opposed prods but I suspect those who opposed this did not fully understand the issues. I have listed them in order of implausibility. Anything about Wallace from 1296 is likely fictional as the first act known to be carried out by him was the Action at Lanark in 1297. A significant Scottish victory at the time claimed for Earnside seems most unlikely, particularly in the vicinity of the major English base at Stirling, seen against the tide of events in the war. PatGallacher (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The battle of Loudon Hill (1296) appears to be mentioned in the source cited at the article and available online here. Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry seems a reliable enough source. Groomtech (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One reason for caution about using these online books as sources is that they are quite difficult to read. This book dates from 1847. This is a problem I have seen with a number of Wikipedia articles, they can be based on very dated sources which in some cases are at variance more recent scholarship (see discussion history for Guthrum II and James Hamilton (assassin)). In this case this looks like an uncritical regurgitation of Blind Harry, not a reliable source. I have in front of me Peter Traquair's Freedom's Sword from 1998, which reflects the current view that William Wallace's career starts with the Action at Lanark in 1297. PatGallacher (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I see, I thought that by "fictional" you meant it had been made up by the article creator (that is, a hoax). Groomtech (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. It was made by by Blind Harry, some 200 years after the battle purportedly took place. Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These may be myths, but that does not mean they are non-notable myths. Edward321 (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it does in at least the case of Loudoun Hill. The only source available that documents this purported battle is Blind Harry's Wallace, a source that histories from earlier centuries merely parrot. Modern historians hold that poem to be generally unreliable, based upon numerous contradictions that it has with the established historical record (including the wrong side winning in some cases!) and other problems. So the only source documenting Loudoun Hill is an unreliable one. Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can have Wikipedia articles on fictional matters which have been rejected by modern scholarship e.g. Pope Joan, Prester John. However, the threshhold of notability should be rather higher than with historical incidents. At the very least, they should be clearly stated as unhistorical. Battle of Elcho Park is completely unreferenced, which suggests lack of notability. Anything legitimate should be dealt with in Blind Harry. PatGallacher (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had no difficulty finding a full account of Battle of Elcho Park - it was just a matter of looking, per WP:BEFORE. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Battle of Loudoun Hill (1296) as an article saying "ascribed to William Wallace by Blind Harry and referred to in earlier sources but now thought to be fictional" (with appropriate references of course). This one is clearly notable enough. Groomtech (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This raises the question of whether we should have an article on all fictional battles ascribed by Blind Harry to Wallace, e.g. the "Battle of Biggar", which doing a quick search you can find mentions of, but which is now regarded by historians as fictional. I suggest this should be a redirect to Blind Harry. The William Wallace article could do with cleanup and an attempt to separate fact from fiction. PatGallacher (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. We have lots of articles in Category:Obsolete scientific theories. If the sources are considered to be dubious by contemporary historians, why not Category:Probable fictional battles or possibly a "List of probable fictional battles ascribed to Blind Harry"? Something does not have to be a proven truth to be notable. Ben Mac Dui 12:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no it isn't. There's one source documenting it. All others simply parrot that source. And that one source is an unreliable one. Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Battle of Elcho Park - uncited. Ben Mac Dui 12:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a citation and so this opinion is obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The only potentially savable article is "Earnside", which is notable only as it is Wallace's last recorded military activity. It should still go however. It was an unimportant "skirmish", which was more likely than not one of scores of isolated attacks on English military parties, only difference being that this one got noted in passing in English government records. It is based on one historical source, found here, s.v. Yrenside. Not a set-piece battle, just an attack on small group of English soldiers probably conducting routine business. It will never have enough sources to state anything more than "it took place and involved x and y" and treatment of it, not that it's needed, can be adequately dealt with in other articles. "Earnside" very likely isn't even a place, just an English word for "a bank of the river Earn". Same goes for the others. Totally unnecessary event spamming. Elcho "Park" is unmentioned in Barbour's Brus, it is not mentioned in Barrow's exhaustive account of the wars, and appears to come only from Harry. Loudon of 1296 is also unmentioned in Barrow. If Barrow doesn't mention these, it is utterly incredible that wikipedia should have an article on them. Skirmishes reported only in Blind Harry are very unlikely to be based on fact, as this source relies on later oral history which, due to the legendary nature of events, is filled with fictitious anecdotes produced by, among other forces, everyone's natural desire to forge a connection between the great man and their locality. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The result of this would be to ensure that anyone who comes across these things in Blind Harry, or other sources, and goes to Wikipedia for more information, will learn precisely nothing. An article, or a redirect to a list of probably fictional battles, would, on the other hand, inform them. Groomtech (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article on Blind Harry should inform them that Wallace is regarded as unreliable and in a number of instances outright counterfactual by modern historians. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to invent original analyses of every single thing in Wallace. Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Might it be a solution to redirect these to William Wallace, including in it a section of (perhaps) legendary battles. I do not know enough of the subject to vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge in some fashion, either in the main article--or, the separate article about Bling Harry. We certainly need some description of them , since they're in a famous legend. DGG (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to look into this further. I have consulted Paterson's "For the Lion" but I am not sure if it is a 100% reliable source.
Loudoun Hill: looks clearly fictional, but fiction on the borderline of notability, not sure if it deserves its own article but I have been bold and added something to Blind Harry, suggest we turn this into a redirect.
Elcho Park: A significant Scottish victory in the vicinity of Perth is consistent with Wallace's movements and the military situation generally around that time. Paterson mentions one near Scone, but does not give it this name, and the description is nothing like this article. Doing an online search, I came across mention of this battle in an online book on Wallace written in 1851 (!) which incorrectly describes him as "Governor General", these online books are difficult to read and I cannot be bothered ploughing through it, but it is probably an uncritical regurgitation of Blind Harry. I suggest we just delete this article, unless anyone can come up with any better sources.
Earnside: I have not managed to read the source which supposedly backs this up, another difficult-to-read online book, maybe there are problems with my computer. It would be helpful if someone copied the relevant text, until then I remain cautious. Can we be sure that "Yrenside" does mean "Earnside"? Did this action definitely involve Wallace? Paterson does mention this action, and an online search has found a purported video of the battle site next to the river Tay. However these scraps of information are seriously at variance with the account in the article. From what we know of Wallace's movements around then, it is surprising that he was temporarily that far north. I suggest turning this into a redirect to William Wallace, but further investigation would help. PatGallacher (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll transcribe the text:
  Thomas de Umframville pro restauro unius equi nigri liardi appreciati pro Willelmo de Echewyke socio suo et motrui apud fugam factam super William le Waleys subtus Yrenside mense Septembris anno presenti, lx s; unius equi ferrando appreciati pro Rogero de Wetwode socio suo et perditi ad eandem fugam ibidem eodem mense, x marcas; et unius someri sui badii redditi ad elemosinam apud Dunfermelin xxix die Decembris, xl s; per compotum factum cum eodem apud Westmonasterium x die Aprilis anno xxxiij.
- I'm assuming this is some record of the English exchequer. I'm no Latinist and its full of jargon about horses I don't understand, but this is a rough translation:
  Thomas de Umfraville for the reimbursement of the value of one dark dapple-grey horse for William de Echewik their associate, and the dead during the act of flight from William le Waleys behind Earnside [or side of the Earn], month of September of the present year, 60 shillings; of the value of one iron-grey horse for Roger de Wetwood their associate and the injuries at this same flight at this same place, 10 marks; and of the rendering [of their bay horses?] in alms at Dunfermline 29th day of December, 40 shilling; per the account [given] of this at Westminster, 10th day of April [regnal] year 33.
- So as I said, it's not notable. Thomas is claiming from the government compensation for losses he suffered after a party of his men were attacked by William Wallace. There was no battle as such, just a "flight". This is the kind of thing that happened all the time, and is not notable just because it got recorded in passing in an English government document. Re Yren, yes, the river is being referred. That's how its usually spelled in the era (Gaelic is Eireann, same as "Ireland"). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are probably right, although a quick search for "Yrenside" just came up with references to "Edmund Yrenside" i.e. Ironside. I suggest we mention this briefly in William Wallace and turn it into a redirect. PatGallacher (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I sense a consensus emerging that these articles should be turned into redirects to either William Wallace or Blind Harry, and anything legitimate should be merged into these articles. I have already done this merge, unless anyone objects I will be bold and make the change to redirects in the next couple of days. PatGallacher (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have no objection. Ben Mac Dui 08:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - On further examination, changing to a redirect would mean removing the AFD notice from the article, which I don't think I am able to do, it needs an administrator to close this. PatGallacher (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not going to, because I gave ((prod2))s. Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat what I said in my ((prod2))s:
- Loundoun Hill: Completely unsupported by reliable sources. The only source available that documents this purported battle was a poem published some 200 years after the fact, Blind Harry's Wallace, that is held to be unreliable by modern historians.
- Earnside: Completely unsupported by reliable sources. The only source available that documents this purported battle was a poem published some 200 years after the fact, Blind Harry's Wallace, that is held to be unreliable by modern historians. The nearest that accepted modern history seems to come to anything like this is Thomas Umfraville, Constable of Dundee, and a garrison of men pursuing Wallace "beneath Ironside", which was a hill near Dundee, in 1304. (See page 40 of Edward J. Cowan's The Wallace book, ISBN 9780859766524.)
Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Read above. Earnside is also mentioned in contemporary English chancellery records; I quoted and translated the record. The record is also cited by Barrow, who thinks it refers to "Earnside". Ironside doesn't sound like the name of any Scottish hill in the 14th century, but I guess it could be. Which contributor argues that? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See ingilbyhistory - Umfraville Gilbert de (1244-1307).pdf. For what its worth there is an Ironside Hill at grid reference NO399411 just off the A928 "at the back of Dundee". Ben MacDui 18:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A bit from Dundee, but interesting nonetheless. I wonder if either party had any specific reason for preferring Ironside over Earnside and vice versa. Here's Barrow's on it.[7] Interestingly, the Fiona Watson article you posted is derivative from Barrow on this part, but not with the name. I'm guessing she probably contemplated it and choose to contradict Barrow. EDIT: Now that I've thought about it, Side probably doesn't represent English "side" (an absurd name for a hill), but Gaelic seat (suidhe), a reasonably common one. What Yren would mean then I don't know. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's you who perhaps should "read above". ☺ It's not a "contributor" who argues that. It's Edward J. Cowan who argues that. I did give a citation that included the page number of the book. Uncle G (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, we might be communicating at cross-purposes. I took your "which contributor" to be a question about Wikipedia contributors, and of course no Wikipedia contributor argued that. The argument is in Cowan's book. But it occurred to me that you might have meant book contributor. Page 40 is part of Fiona Watson's "Sir William Wallace : what we do — and don't — know". Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I was referring to the contributor in the Cowan edited volume. Ben's piece above is the ODNB article on Gilbert de Umfraville by Fiona Watson. I guess Earnside very Ironside is G. W. S. Barrow versus Fiona Watson (historian). Might actually be worth keeping it as an article on second thoughts. It's his last known encounter and it is debated whether it refers to the hill near Dundee or a place next to the Earn. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Battle of Earnside" is nudging towards notability, but we may have to move it to "Action at Yrenside". PatGallacher (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens. "To the west of Newburgh there stretched for several miles a wood known as Black Earnside, or as it was sometimes known, Black Ironside. It was a dark wood which covered the hillside and extended down to the waters edge. ... Sir William Wallace in his fight against the English often used Black Earn side as a sheltered and there is still a bridge along which the road passes near the top of the ascent, about two miles east from the Abbey which is known as Wallace's Bridge. In 1298 in the month of June, Wallace fought the Earl of Pembroke at Black Earn Side." There is even a plaque with a date of 12 June 1298! See [8]. The Abbey is Lindores Abbey and Wallace's Bridge is marked on the OS - grid reference NO256190 Ben Mac Dui 17:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, while researching this, I've discovered that apparently the English word "iron" is a borrowing from Celtic. Mostly irrelevant, but interesting nonetheless. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all History is increasingly tenuous as we go back in time but this does not stop us from talking of such debatable matters as the Siege of Troy, Robin Hood or King Arthur. If the accounts of these battles are disputed by modern scholars then we should, of course, say so. But it then follows that we should retain these articles in some form so that their status - mythic or otherwise - may be properly covered here. Deletion is not helpful in this in that it obscures rather than informing. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we do not have an article on e.g. every individual legendary battle fought by King Arthur. See Historia Brittonum for a sensible way this can be handled. PatGallacher (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Consider the Battle of Fort Guinnon for example. This started as a small stub and is currently redirected to the Historia Brittonum article. In that case, we also see considerable vagaries of spelling, as above, and the locale and its etymology have been puzzled over by scholars. In that case, the notable title of the battle was not deleted but was instead consolidated. For more recent example, please see Battle of the Cowshed AFD. That was a quite fictional battle but it was determined again that we would best serve our readership by consolidating rather than deleting. Deletion is quite inappropriate in such cases as it is unhelpful to our readers and disrepectful to our contributors. As it seems that the nominator in our case - User:PatGallacher - now sees that digging into the matter may be productive, this deletion discussion should be closed and the matter pursued by means of ordinary content editing and discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Renea[edit]

Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSIC. See all dates Google news archive search. Bongo matic 17:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫17:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found this article, but that's it. That's insufficient to establish notability. - Whpq (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When You Gonna[edit]

No sources, claims to have been certified in Chile but I can't verify it. Redirect to Rick Astley undone. Otherwise fails WP:MUSIC as one of the artists is a red link and there's no other assertation of notability — didn't chart anywhere, no sources, etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. since this is linked from many articles, should be moved as a section in an appropriate page. --BsayUSD [Talk]π[contribs] 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna go Delete on this one too. No citations, seems to be more of a promotional single. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 04:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Say We Didn't Warn You[edit]

Too early for an article about an album not released for another 3 months. No sginificant write up in reliable sources (only 41 Google hits - mostly fan sites, blogs and other unverified speculation). Only three tracks listed as "confirmed" but no sources provided at all. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Astronaut (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. BigDunc 17:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Wikipedia is not for advertisments. Not yet notable. Too early. Barras (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & . Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 04:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of academic programs of Holy Name University[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory or catalogue. Indiscriminate collection of information better befitting a university prospectus than an encyclopedia. Do not recommend merger of content as information is fundamentally unencyclopedic. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. Too much of minutiae for an encyclopaedic article. e.g. Bachelor of Secondary Education, major in Values Education. I'd normally be ok with a redirect for academic programs etc, but this isn't a plausible redirect either. A merge is out of the question because the content has to be sourced first, given that, if anyone wants to do it, they can add sourced content to the University page. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting site. This is all stuff that at least should be on the school's website. No need to repeat it here, and we also run the risk of it going out of date should the programs change. Better to just reference the school's offical website from the article about the school. (Lots of these in AFD right now, expect lots of cut-n-paste responses from me).--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — irretrievably fails WP:NOTDIR —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried looking at the Philippine Daily Inquirer archives if there is a significant news to attach to it's notability, sadly I couldn't find any. School has a separate article, I think this list is not needed although the school isn't very notable, lacks inline citations. --TitanOne (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Institute College of Art MFA Programs[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory or catalogue. Indiscriminate collection of information better befitting a university prospectus than an encyclopedia. Do not recommend merger as information is fundamentally unencyclopedic and borderline advertising. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not opposed to the idea of this article per se, but don't see the need for it. If you strip away the lead and the minutiae, it would boil down to a few lines that could easily be folded into the main MICA article. (Here is an example of minutia: "Hoffberger studios are located on the 4th floor of the Studio Center, more commonly known as the Bank Building. Prior to summer of 2006, Hoffberger studios were located on the 3rd floor of the Fox Building") Strikehold (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting site. This is all stuff that at least should be on the school's website. No need to repeat it here, and we also run the risk of it going out of date should the programs change. Better to just reference the school's offical website from the article about the school. (Lots of these in AFD right now, expect lots of cut-n-paste responses from me).--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — irretrievably fails WP:NOTDIR —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johns Hopkins University Whiting School of Engineering Engineering and Applied Science Programs for Professionals[edit]

Non-notable academic degree program with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Do not recommend merger since Wikipedia is not a directory of academic programs or advertising. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree. I would have had qualms had this article covered continuing education programs for the entire univeristy, however since this is merely an extension of an already existing Hopkins division I see no reason to keep on the basis of either notability or validity, especially after having already incorporated the relevant section into the main article.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting site. This is all stuff that at least should be on the school's website. No need to repeat it here, and we also run the risk of it going out of date should the programs change. Better to just reference the school's offical website from the article about the school. (Lots of these in AFD right now, expect lots of cut-n-paste responses from me).--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — irretrievably fails WP:NOTDIR —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no need for a redirect, since its an extremely unlikely search title. They were added in 07 and we should have gotten to them earlier. DGG (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Ackerman[edit]

A nicely constructed biographical article, but does the subject really meet the notability guidelines? When you examine the references they seem rather thin, no really significant mention of the subject in the mainstream media. The whole article is really something of a puff piece. Polly (Parrot) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete INsufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Author's Rebuttal

The readership of Washington Life magazine consists of the most well connected members of society in Washington, DC. The magazine has a subscriber base of at least 40,000. The magazine publishes 60,000 copies ten times a year which are read by at least 200,000 people per year. The Washington Life website receives around 5 and a half million hits per month. [9]

The Bisnow email newsletter styles itself as the People for the professional set and has a readership of 120,000 people in the Washington DC area. The Legalbisnow newsletter which he was featured in boasts a weekly readership of at least 14,000 attorneys. [10]

The Washington Lawyer is the official publication of the Washington DC bar organization. The DC bar is comprised of 80,000 attorneys.

The scholarship that he is the cobenefactor of has benefited countless students since 2003 to promote LGBT advocacy.

All in all this equals roughly 400,000 people who have read about Glen and his work as an LGBT advocate. While these magazines may not be the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, they certainly qualify as mainstream media for the Washington, DC area. Therefore the assertion that the press written about him does not qualify as mainstream is flawed. The sources, as required by the notability guidelines, are both reliable and verifiable. Additionally, Ackerman has been mentioned many times in these verifiable sources. The sources relied on in this article were not written by the subject nor were they advertising or self published. This clearly satisfies the parameters laid out by Wikipedia for keeping the article. Amanda.cook.esq (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN a few magazines in the DC area are surely not "significant coverage" --BsayUSD [Talk]π[contribs] 19:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes, Wikipedia is not a directory and we should avoid self promotion (which some may accuse this of being). I don't see this particular case that way and it is well put together and sourced. Borderline? Sure. Not notable? Not sure I'm landing that far south of the line.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well I think I will head that far south. You have not pointed to the reliable sources with significant coverage on the scale that would be needed. And to be honest, I've not looked in massive detail but a few scans of the references and article and I cannot find them. Seems a desperate amalgamation of information, sort of along the lines of WP:Bombardment in order to attempt notability. Polargeo (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of significant coverage. Borderline? No. Below the line. JBsupreme (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Delete — Even if this article were completely rewritten to make it less like a promotional presentation of Mr. Ackerman's CV — especially if it were thus rewritten — Mr. Ackerman would still be, evidently, a real stand-up guy working hard to improve his community who at this time does not meet WP:BIO notability standards; popularity does not imply or confer notability. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kill the sky[edit]

Non notable band. Google search only shows up local bookings and myspace/facebook pages. Shadowjams (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being "one of Fargo Moorheads best original metal groups" does not necc. make you notable. I too could find no rel. sources. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:GARAGE. Fails to meet any notability criteria, including WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 13:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability per WP:JUSTANOTHERNON-NOTABLEGARAGEBAND. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 04:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Allowing for creation of a redirect; the target can be decided outside of AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financial games[edit]

Seems to be a thinly veiled advert for a company offering financial games. Oscarthecat (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Merge : I guess if you had a list of games or simulations- war games,

game theory etc. At issue is objective I guess, as this is more like entertainment and maybe it would go with "sex games" or online gambling ( don't get me going on financial markets LOL). Online gaming has generated controversy, aka notability, and maybe this could be merged even if not played with real money. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: author removed AfD template; I've now restored it. Powers ^T 13:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Financial gaming, even though that article's only marginally better. No merge; the only information not already in Financial gaming is how-to material inappropriate for an encyclopedia. —Korath (Talk) 14:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note user also created Financial gaming and Trading games which are pretty much the same. I move to delete all of them. JuJube (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. I've now raised AfDs for those two sites also. --Oscarthecat (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Redirect to Business simulation game as a plausible target.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found business simulation game too when I was flailing around for a redirect target, but thought it too specific (it deals only with video games) - I would expect to find a more general article article on the genre as a whole that covers e.g. Monopoly (game). We don't seem to have one. —Korath (Talk) 14:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or re-direct to pirate memory games. Likely spam. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is clearly no consensus to delete. Whether it is moved, merged, etc. is an editing decision. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skyramp[edit]

Article fails to show notability for 'Skyramp'. Skyramp seems to have no major references from reliable sources either in the article or to it elsewhere. Additionally the article fails to show generality- I doubt the only rail launch concept is Skyramp, but the article has been linked with that assumption. I believe that its place in the wikipedia has not been justified. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rick here.
I disagree, I believe that it is worthy of its own page. Most rail launch systems are planned to go on flat ground near sea level. (For example, see the reference to the planned European Phoenix space craft). This is sub-optimal in two respects. First the high air friction means that most of the energy imparted by the ramp is lost while the space craft is flying up above most of the air. Further, low level launch still has the problems with Max Q and sub-optimal shape of the rocket nozzle. (A ground level rocket sled may be able to get a craft going fast enough for a ram jet engine however.)

Furthermore, an inclined rocket sled is the only practical method we could get a fully reusable single stage to orbit space craft any time in the near future. No new science is required, nor any significant new engineering as the rocket sleds at China Lake have already proven the tech. Since this is (in my opinion) the single most likely way to cause a significant drop in the price to orbit in the next few years, I think that it is _extremely_ notable.

I agree that the concept is not well known, but that is the point of creating the page. I hope that with time it will gain more interest based on its merits. I intend to improve the article given time, and hope that other people will do so as well. I am very busy, and don't have a lot of time to spend on this. For example, I receintly have added two in line references. I have not found an proper URL that explains how much savings will be made by such an inclined rocket sled, but intend to work out the savings from the rocket equation.

As for the name 'skyramp' I agree. I've only seen it used on the skyramp web page (and several pages that link to it) but a good name is useful in popularizing an idea and it is better than "an inclined rocket or jet powered sled for launching space craft" which is accurate but lacks pizazz.

RichardWayneSmith (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, 'I agree that the concept is not well known, but that is the point of creating the page.' Um. No. That's called 'advertising'. The wikipedia is supposed to give things a neutral point of view, it's supposed to reflect how it is already regarded, not create new interest. You're basically admitting that you're abusing the Wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to rail launch, rail-launched spaceflight or some other more appropriate title. Whilst I see no evidence that the name "Skyramp" is a genuine name for this system, rail launched spaceflight has been seriously proposed, and does warrant an article. I think that some parts of this article might be salvageable, so its history would need to be preserved for attribution. --G W… 12:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move as per previous comment - and of course remove the reference to "Skyramp" unless it can be stood up as notable, which I doubt. andy (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rocket sled--it seems to me that that is what we have here, only at an incline. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick here. It is hardly advertising if I'm not making money off of it. What is the point of an encyclopedia that does not have new and interesting things in it? A skyramp is the coolest thing involved in spaceflight that I've heard of in years. Using it we COULD have a reusable single stage to orbit which would transform spaceflight.

If you want to rename the page, 'inclined rail launched spaceflight' then that is fine with me. It is beyond my comprehension why using such an awkward name would be better for anyone.

Drmies said that it is a rocket powered sled. However a sky ramp can use jet engines, rockets or (theoretically) a mass driver as its motive force.

I'm very busy, but I hope to free up some time this or next week at improving the page further.

Warm regards, Rick RichardWayneSmith (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As others have pointed out, it violates WP:SOAP. And just because you're not making money from it, doesn't make it not advertising, one lesser use of adverts are to make a political or other kind of point.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and remove non-notable brand-specific references (SkyRamp) and otherwise clean up to comply with SOAP. This info can incubate as a section of Rocket sled; perhaps in future it will be sufficiently comprehensive and supported to merit splitting out as its own article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs work and editing, but that's not a deletion issue, it's an editing issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can turn banana into cow with enough editing. That doesn't save it from being on a non notable topic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools and academic programs at The Catholic University of America[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory or catalogue. Indiscriminate collection of information better befitting a university prospectus than an encyclopedia. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am CoI'd, but I would prefer if List of graduate programs at The Catholic University of America and List of schools and academic programs at The Catholic University of America were merged. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting site. This is all stuff that at least should be on the school's website. No need to repeat it here, and we also run the risk of it going out of date should the programs change. Better to just reference the school's offical website from the article about the school. (Lots of these in AFD right now, expect lots of cut-n-paste responses from me).--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — irretrievably violates WP:NOTDIR —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent for these types of lists. Duplicative of the school's web site. JJL (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of graduate programs at The Catholic University of America[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory or catalogue. Indiscriminate collection of information better befitting a university prospectus than an encyclopedia. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am CoI'd, but I would prefer if List of graduate programs at The Catholic University of America and List of schools and academic programs at The Catholic University of America were merged. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, delete per WP:UNIGUIDE/WP:NOT. --King of the Arverni (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting site. This is all stuff that at least should be on the school's website. No need to repeat it here, and we also run the risk of it going out of date should the programs change. Better to just reference the school's offical website from the article about the school. (Lots of these in AFD right now, expect lots of cut-n-paste responses from me).--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — irretrievably violates WP:NOTDIR —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent for these types of lists. Duplicative of the school's web site. JJL (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher (Global Repeal) Bill[edit]

This is a topic of insufficient notability. It is not a genuine Bill, but an offhanded reference made in a single speech; no such Bill was ever introduced and it is possible that the speaker was only kidding when he claimed to have actually drafted it. There are no sources other than the primary source link to the speech. While there is a link on the supposed Bill title, this is an automatically installed link. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A "comically proposed United Kingdom Act of Parliament"??? This unsourced entry on a "bill" never voted on or put into effect doesn't even come close to satisfying notability standards. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but consider mentioning it in the Tony Benn article, seeing as he's the MP who suggested it, even if it was a joke. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tony Benn if others feel it would be apropriate there or Delete. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete throwaway remark in a Benn speech. He makes plenty of them and plenty of them are very amusing -- no need to redirect. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I would love to see the implementation of this Bill it must be delete. Francium12 (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was a passing joke by Benn. Fences&Windows 22:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are sources; however, the argument that the sources do not sufficiently show notability is stronger. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Russell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete as a non-notable local journalist. She doesn't appear in any sources outside of a couple of local newspapers, nothing significant to establish notability. Tavix | Talk 01:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not cleanup. Tony's simple argument from the last AfD was persuasive enough. Page did lack independent coverage; I added a link sufficient to pass that bar. Notable, but local, news celebrity. Page needs love. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never requested cleanup, I requested deletion because as a local news anchor I'm not seeing the notability. Tavix | Talk 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've performed the cleanup mentioned and added substantial independent coverage links to demonstrate subject has been "local news anchor" for network affiliates in three of the country's largest markets. To me, that's sufficient notability, though I'll concede I don't see a policy I can quote. Still looking. Don't suppose I can use the subject's own classmates.com or twitter pages as an RS... BusterD (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from previous closing administrator's statement: "The deletion people seem to be setting the bar for notability too high; people with regional notability can still have encyclopedic articles on them, no matter how uninteresting it may be to people from elsewhere."--originally written by User:Cyde. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She is a non-notable reporter for local affiliates. Yes, she was in big markets, but that doesn't confer notability. Trivial mentions in local media (she attended this luncheon or rode on that float) don't make her notable. No awards listed. She simply does her job. Her job happens to be on TV, that makes her visible, not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent evidence of notability per WP:BIO. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The sources in the article show the notability threshold has been adequately met. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The sources in the article show no such notability. Popularity does not imply notability, and please review BIO notes on the subject. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn local TV journalist. Every journalist is in the news, for obvious reasons. JJL (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per directly above, how is she particuarly more notable than the thousands of other news anchors out there? From the sources, she's not particuarly notable for doing anything extraordinary in her profession than the usual stuff that her job requires. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs on acid[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)).

Contested PROD with no improvement or reason given by IP. Unsourced and non-notable website. Barely asserts notability. Ranked 44,363rd in traffic by Alexa internet. No non-trivial coverage. Wperdue (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this nn website to Fresh (musician), where it is mentioned. I don't think the article even makes a claim of notability. JJL (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added sources haven't swayed me on this--they don't seem both reliable and about the site. JJL (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously, how hard did you look? The article claims that members invented the internet word 'hin', and this says they did. Four exclusion words, '-hotel, -thailand, -resort, and -spa' later, I found this on the second Yahoo page. Urban dictionary definition of 'hin' crediting Dogs on Acid. Anarchangel (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a website, it is a forum and since 2004, a record business as well. Discog 'bio' : "Starting as a drum'n'bass forum and news site, Dogs On Acid started in the record business in early 2004" -_- Acronym Finder : "What does DOA stand for? Dogs on Acid (dance music forum)"

I am not familiar with Alexa, but if it tracks the hits on an individual page, then asserting that the number of hits for the forum as a whole is what Alexa records on the main page only is a serious error.

As for redirecting to Fresh, perhaps it is more like, he ought to be mentioned in the article, being a founding member and all. Anarchangel (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I believe I exercised due diligence in looking for sources. I think you and I disagree on what constitutes a reliable source. The Urban Dictionary is now a reliable source? Also, since when is an internet forum not considered a website? And as for DOA standing for "Dogs on Acid", I always thought it stood for "dead on arrival" and, after looking at your source, it contains 204 different possible acronyms for DOA. Wperdue (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

The comment you are responding to was directed to JJL, and his assertion that "I don't think the article even makes a claim of notability." We agree about what constitutes a reliable source; I believe that the Urban dictionary is less than completely reliable, as it is wikified.

To the parts of your replies about my comments that were concerning what you wrote: All forums are websites, but not all websites are forums. Specificity was my point.

Acronym Finder ~~do the job right;~~ they list everything, and rank it according to its verifiability and notability. 'Dogs on Acid' is not listed on the page: "Our 'Attic' has 148 -unverified- meanings for DOA" (my emphasis), but it does note that among the 56 verified acronyms, "This definition appears very rarely". So, WP:V is satisfied by this citation, ~~but DoA is shown to be less WP:N. How much less would require looking at other examples on Acronym Finder to get an idea of the standard they use.~~

Ok, scratch parts of my comment. Acronym Finder do a job, but not the whole job. They rank according to a star system; the definition one might expect for "CIA" gets 6 stars, but also returns the phrase, "This definition appears very rarely". It seems every definition does. Dogs on Acid gets 4 stars. Anarchangel (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make a new point, that 'uncontested PROD' is like saying that an Indian didn't show up in court to contest someone stealing his land. The Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process is incredibly biased towards power users and against WP's primary contributors, new users.

DoA, as one of the larger, possibly the largest UK Drum 'n' Bass forums, is also notable outside the UK; there was a Los Angeles site that mentioned them, but I was getting hit by some kind of spam attack when I went to the site, and I didn't have the presence of mind to copy-paste the URL and I can't be bothered to search again until this is resolved.

Previous points remain unaddressed. I have very serious doubts as to the validity of the number of hits as recorded by Alexa; Alexa always returns the exact same data whether the main page or subpages are entered into the search. This skews all data for multiple-page sites, as users of a forum may avoid the main page altogether when setting bookmarks. I know I do. Now it is possible that Alexa records all the traffic on the whole site, but it seems like something they would claim in big bold letters; I think it is more likely that there is no mention of it because it is a flaw in their system.

Most importantly, DoA has been since 2004, a record business as well as a forum, as verified by the listing on Discogs. It is verifiably notable as a record business. Anarchangel (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Anarchangel (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that is non-notable. I can't find anything to indicate that they stand out from any other music forum, record label or online store. A search with google finds mostly mentions on other forums, blogs, and fan sites. I don't find anything from what I could call a reliable source. As as label, they appear to be insignificant. The appear to have several releases but nothing to distinguish themselves from the countless other small labels. Their primary business seems to be running a forum with an online shop. --Sophitessa (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This forum is notable, it just needs time to be properly edited. As you can see many notable artists post on there. Also it was the driving force to making the very notable band pendulum famous. It was also the website started by one of the biggest electronic producers in the uk at the time Bad Company. This website holds a lot of history, it just needs time to be put together. When does this debate close? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayflux (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This forum is the center for anything and everything drum and bass, and to a lesser degree, dubstep. It should definitely have it's place on Wikipedia/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.27.76 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More reliable sources about notable artists in relation to the forum http://www.teletext.co.uk/planetsound/news/8f94d79ffc51d134a4940df006c71208/Pendulum+attack+critics.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.64.15 (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, I'd like to mention that I'm affiliated with Dogs On Acid and have been asked by the initial creator of this article to make a case for keeping the article up on Wikipedia and contribute towards this goal.

The article definitely needs more work content wise as there are a few false claims and errors, but I'm pretty sure that over the next couple of iterations we can work this out, including proper verification by trusted sources.

On the subject of notability, let me mention a few facts. We are indeed the largest online community, by forum statistics and activity, when it comes to Drum & Bass music. We've never claimed to be the largest dance music forum. The emphasis lays on the latter part of the claim. According to Alexa (which by the way I doubt is a definite trusted source), when it comes to overall website traffic and stats, we also take over the crown from Drum & Bass Arena, the self proclaimed largest D&B website, on a regular basis. Apart from the website, we run various record labels, events, etc. In short we've far surpassed being just a website. We're a household name, synonymous with the music, known by a large part, if not the most part, of the D&B community.

The website is founded and owned by some of the biggest artists in the D&B scene. We've been nominated for a BBC XtraBass Award, narrowly missing the award taking a second place. Also, the claim that our labels are insignificant is unfounded. For Drum & Bass music standards, Breakbeat Kaos is one of the biggest selling labels within the genre, with Pendulum even hitting the UK album charts. You have to remember that apart from moments of pop culture interest, D&B is an underground niche market.

The Grid, our music production section, is the birthplace of many new D&B talent. Noisia, Mistabishi and Data to name a few, were regular contributors before gaining any (mainstream) popularity. Next to this, most D&B artists and promoters are or were regular contributors to our website one time or another.

I hope I made my case. It's better to make my case first before putting in work for the article. Dog On Acid (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Accolades section does indicate notability. Pinkgirl 18:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, as it is unsourced. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added references, including one for the BBC award. Dog On Acid (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Drum and Bass Arena forever. Portillo (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought your concerns with the article were genuine (see article history.) But now I see this is not the case. Ignore Portillo's vote. Dog On Acid (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good faith edits. Portillo (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article's Talk page to clarify your last edit (and be a bit more elaborate with regards to neutrality, exaggeration of non-notable facts and confusion.) Let's work this out. Dog On Acid (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Acceptable Article, meets wikipedia standards and proves notability. Decent amount of references and sources (that are NOT self sourced). I think we have established this cannot be merged with DJ Fresh as the two article discuss completely different matters. Pendulum (regular posters) are notable for their chart success, also this website harbours many notable figures. Anyone who wants to understand what the website is about, will find this well written detailed article a valuable and interesting resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayflux (talk • contribs) 01:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dogs On Acid has played a pivotal role in the sculpting on the Drum and Bass scene. It has helped introduce new artists and DJ's, offered an open forum for criticism, and created an outlet for the public. DOA is a cornerstone of the Drum and Bass scene. It is not just a music forum; It has reshaped the music it was created by. - Eric Pollen

Delete - insufficient coverage to establish notability. The references provided are mentions, and for the most part are from unreliable sources. There is simply no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its very hard to gain a lot of coverage for a forum, where most of the things happening are within that forum and are not very often relayed elsewhere. I disagree by your comment, not all of our references are mentions, we have statistics from Apex, Big boards and Wolfram alpha. We have award listings on the BBC website and also nominations in magazine websites, not to mention being mentioned on the UK's Teletext website which is a reliable news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.64.15 (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I agree, the references mentioned are reliable and good sources. Forums are quite hard to source because the context is all from the discussions within. The magazine article has also proved this website to be notable within the music genre just as much as any other music based website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayflux (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Just added another reference from The Independent where the website has been mentioned as 'phenomenal'. More proof for the notabilty of this portal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayflux (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, only one !vote per customer. -- Whpq (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we are not in todays deletion log, does this mean that his debate is over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.64.15 (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn and article kept: the subject passes WP:ATHLETE guidelines. JamieS93 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Yao[edit]

~~Hasn't achieved anything at senior level and the Ivorian league isn't professional so he fails WP:ATHLETE even if he makes an appearance~~ Spiderone (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he passes WP:ATHLETE. If you click on this site, then select 'YAO Kouassi Martial' in the drop-down menu, it confirms he has made two appearances in the CAF Champions League 2009. Giant Snowman 16:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pro-footballer, that makes him notable even in a very minor footballing nation. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, simply being a professional footballer isn't actually enough; you have to actually play in a firts-team match order to meet WP:ATHLETE guidelines. Giant Snowman 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course, my slip. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nominator has removed text nominating this player. Nfitz (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja (film)[edit]

Unnotable future film. Fails WP:NFF. Nothing but a repeat of the entry in IMDB, including WP:COPYVIO summary stolen from an IMDB news item. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFF and WP:COPYVIO. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is a bunch of trivial mentions. One of the trivial mentions said that there is no word on the movie's release date. Fails WP:NFF. Iowateen (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFF. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are good arguments on both sides. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have played video game characters[edit]

Fails WP:N and violates WP:NOT. A pointless trivia list, at best. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irretrievably fails WP:NOTDIR, probably runs afoul of WP:N, and abrades WP:BIO. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ changed to Neutral they say never call stuff "cruft" ... okay, there's an exception to everything!--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've read through everyone's comments here. I've done some discussing on other topics and wrote an essay at WP:DISCRIMINATE -which does apply in that it is a specific list. I don't necessarily think it is good list or one that can be maintained, but then we're delving into my personal opinion. As much as "I like it it" is not a reason to keep, "I don't like it" is not a reason to delete. Can't quite get over to keep just yet... but I'll pull my delete position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be titled List of actors who have played video game characters in movies. Or perhaps include those who do acting for cutscreens in games as well. The movies they are in should be in a third box, not jammed into the second one as it is now. It is a valid list, helping people interested in this, find wikipedia articles for it. Dream Focus 23:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — "I like it" is not a valid basis for keeping a noncompliant article.—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acceptable list. Brings together Wikipedia content for the sake of navigation (One person's trivia is another's important content) . Browsing is one of the key functions of any encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is overly indiscriminate and I can't imagine how this improves navigation within Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory, and the list articles we have should be about notable, defined subjects. This list is a vaguely defined collection of people with little to no discernable relationship with each other. Per WP:SALAT, the inclusion criteria is just too broad to have an encyclopedic article built from it. Them From Space 03:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's essentially trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DGG has made a cogent point. The list is not trivia nor an indiscriminate collection of information, as it serves as a navigation aid that serves to improve the project... one that meets the criteria of WP:STAND as it is based on reliable sources. Should the nom wish the numerous references be brought over from the 18 listed articles, fine... but that is a matter for cleanup and not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed that it's indiscriminate, as it poses a question rather than answers one; why? It's also redundant to List of movies based on video games. The title isn't explanatory, what it's saying is "list of actors who have portrayed existing video game characters in live action films", except that the characters are listed first making it more "video game characters who have been portrayed in live action films". Considering it would be very difficult to argue that portraying a video game character is a high-point in anybody's career, that movies based on video games are noted for often having little if anything to do with the source material, and that characters get totally reworked or omitted, it's not making a lot of sense to zoom in on it. Anybody who, for whatever reason, wants to look at video game characters being portrayed by actors has a clear path from the movies based on video games list; movie articles have cast/character lists. That's aside from the massive amount of anime based on games, which poses further questions. I think it's just a case of a fuzzy idea which seemed good at the time but hadn't been thought through. Someone another 23:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is discriminate, and useful for navigation. Maybe could use a better name. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. One day I will have to just ditto, but not yet: Propose that the article could use someone truly heroic to look up all those names on the Internet Movie Database and provide citations. Anarchangel (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, that IMDB is not a reliable source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, let's assume that User:Anarchangel meant that IMDB might be used as a tool to begin a search for RS about the subject and the actors... and not that the user meant that IMDB was itself to be used as a source. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. No one was born knowing the list of unreliable sources experienced wiki editors keep in their heads, I feel no shame in that regard. Anarchangel (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to say keep on this one as this looks like an acceptable list per WP:SALAT. Looking at List of films based on video games, I don't see the redundancy mentioned above as I think this list focus more on notable actors who have played film roles of notable VG characters, which is not necessarily the same as the VG films list (hence why I don't think a merge could be possible). Otherwise, it's serving its purpose as a list. MuZemike 01:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would editors please learn what the word "indiscriminate" means? This is a very well-defined list: notable actors who have played characters from video games in a notable film. Quite simple. Why is it "trivia" to know this? Fences&Windows 17:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what indiscriminate means, which is why I fail to see any merit in a list of actors who have portrayed video game characters in films. It doesn't define the actors, it doesn't define the characters, it is just trivia for that reason and I'm questioning the validity of the list on the same grounds. You are welcome to disagree but "Would editors please learn what the word "indiscriminate" means?" is just fucking insulting. Someone another 19:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supoj Wonghoi[edit]

~~Google search only comes up with sites that link to Wikipedia. Therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE.~~ Spiderone (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on research below from Phil Bridger which shows that this player has played in a fully-pro league, meaning he passes WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any evidence that he has played for Sriracha. Jogurney (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Per the evidence below, it seems that Wonghoi has played for Srirachi in the Thai Premier League. I've changed my !vote to keep. Jogurney (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's listed on the club's web page as number 19 - "สุพจน์ วงษ์หอย" that transliterates to "sòo-pót wong hŏi" so he's certainly on their roster. As they only list 23 players, it would seem likely that he has made appearances. I can find one media article that mentions him - [11] which appears to be a game report. He looks legit to me. Nfitz (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I click on the link all I get is a "Oops! This link appears to be broken." message from Google...Giant Snowman 11:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked on it, and it worked; maybe it was down. Nfitz (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As User:Nfitz points out, he's listed on Sriracha FC website. If Thai pro footballers are generally not notable and fail WP:ATHLETE, the issue should be addressed systematically since about 3/4 of the current squad have their own similar one-line unreferenced article. — AjaxSmack 03:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These appear to be match reports showing that the subject has played in the Thai Premier League, at least as far as I can make out from Google's translations, which are very difficult to read without laughing (e.g. "Dragon-headed unicorn no fear, terrified of the sea turtle Master stabbing attack share points"). Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuanglarp Koh-Thong[edit]

non-notable youth player Spiderone (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any evidence that he's played for BEC Tero Sasana's senior squad. Jogurney (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @967 · 22:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Bout Tha Stax (Intro)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I'm Bout Tha Stax (Intro)

Album track, wasn't released, no indication of how it is notable. PXK ^T /_C 15:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article states it was released (to radio stations), but there's no apparent evidence of notability. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article passes criteria 2 of WP:MUSIC. Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart. Iowateen (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The various sub-charts of Billboard aren't generally considered to be "charting". The Top 200 is the standard. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability threshold isn't met, and if so barely. Released to radio. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Moore[edit]

Obviously an admirable man, but I see no particular reason why he should have an article on Wikipedia. He wasn't the first African-American fireman in a major fire department or anything of that nature, which might qualify him for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not appear to comply with WP:BIO — available info would support a eulogy, but apparently not an encylopædia article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DANGIT can't bring myself to say "delete" on this one because it's so well done. Give it time and let some sources come in? Editing? Assertion of notability? Please, I want to say keep!--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment H'mm. As far as I'm aware, compliance with WP:N and WP:V will usually save an article from deletion. I'm not aware of any policy that lets us keep articles that don't comply with WP:N just because they're nicely written. Can you point me at that policy? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer Nope. Which is why I'm a "DANGIT" its probably going to get deleted. Maybe we could userfy to the primary article creator?--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, yeah, I guess it could be userified, but…to what end? He'll still be non-notable, which means userification would seem to run afoul of WP:NOTHOST. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personal feelings aside, he simply doesn't meet notability at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources provided or found to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degree Programs at Ohio Wesleyan University[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia is not a directory or catalogue. Indiscriminate collection of information better befitting a university prospectus than an encyclopedia. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UNIGUIDE/WP:NOT. --King of the Arverni (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; irretrievably violates WP:NOTDIR. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting site. This is all stuff that at least should be on the school's website. No need to repeat it here, and we also run the risk of it going out of date should the programs change. Better to just reference the school's offical website from the article about the school. (Lots of these in AFD right now, expect lots of cut-n-paste responses from me).--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and direct the Reader to the relevent school website. If it is only going to be a simple copy of the same information they have, then Wikipedia:NOTDIR would apply. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degree programs at the University of Massachusetts Amherst[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory or catalogue. Indiscriminate collection of information better befitting a university prospectus than an encyclopedia. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UNIGUIDE/WP:NOT. --King of the Arverni (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; irretrievably violates WP:NOTDIR. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting site. This is all stuff that at least should be on the school's website. No need to repeat it here, and we also run the risk of it going out of date should the programs change. Better to just reference the school's offical website from the article about the school. (Lots of these in AFD right now, expect lots of cut-n-paste responses from me).--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and direct the Reader to the relevent school website. If it is only going to be a simple copy of the same information they have, then Wikipedia:NOTDIR would apply. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jellybass[edit]

Procedural nom. This article was deleted through the PROD process, but the contents were pasted back in by a contributor. I've restored the history for attribution reasons and am bringing it here for evaluation. The PROD nominator indicated, "No apparent coverage in reliable sources. Nothing in google news on the artist or on the term representing a genre; Allmusic carries a listing but no substantive content." Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and original PROD. Problems with WP:V and WP:N. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article makes to significant assertions. One is that jellybass refers to a genre of music. This fails verifiability. I can find no critical commentary about any genre of music known a jellybase. It also asserts that jellybase is a musical group. This fails notability as there are no reliable sources covering this group. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic flag[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository or image dump. If these flags are free, a suitable gallery could be created at Wikimedia Commons; if they are not free, and I suspect that some are not, they should not be used in a gallery like this anyway. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination is another example about how image policy wonkery messes with the actual purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Print encyclopedias regularly display flags as color plates in an image, without apparent worries about who owns 'em or whether they're free to use. It's just hard to believe that anyone who flies a flag would object to an image in a gallery showing what that flag looks like, so that even the presence of a fair use image in this kind of gallery would generate any legitimate monopoly-franchise issues. I don't question the nominator's good faith - he is doing what he thinks policy suggests we should do - but any policy that would lead anyone to think this page ought to be deleted is broken and interfering with the project of building an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not reject these galleries outright (I consider Flags of Europe an excellent attempt at a comprehensive article covering the flags of Europe) but this article is listing "ethnic flags"- many of them have minimal notability, and there is little article content relating to the flags themselves. I just feel that this is not a legitimate subject for an article, beyond the NFC concerns (which, I feel, add weight to deletion). J Milburn (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just curious which flags you feel are non-notable? I am familiar with 70-80% of these, in many cases from other print or internet sources (or maybe other Wikipedia articles) or personal experience. (BTW, this is the first time I've even seen this article.) — AjaxSmack 03:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which of these flags have been covered in reliable sources? (Note, I've recently removed a large number of them...) J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a good point that the flag images likely can not be uploaded to commons as they are not likely to be PD/CC, so the only place they can be uploaded is as fair use here. As to the inclusion of specific flags in the article, that is another matter. For what it is worth I can not think of any "ethnic" flags off the top of my head. In looking at this version,[12] I see one ethnic flag I recognize, african americans. I would point out that the american indian tribes are sovereign nations, and while they may also be ethnic groups, should not be included, for that reason. If you included all the ethnic groups that were also sovereign nations you would include Italy, France and Spain, for example. Not to mention a hundred other countries. Apteva (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable, encyclopedic and awfully neat (I know I know -- ignore that). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Encyclopedic content. Notable and interesting. --BsayUSD [Talk]π[contribs] 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the images does not have any reference:( 245 image with 28 "note" , that 9 of them are in fact one reference Znaimerowski ) ! This page is becoming a place for WP:SOAP.More than that , the word Ethnic is not a clear one and definition of ethnicity is super-flexible: that makes this page prone for non-verifiable and un-encyclopedic content.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; while it may be difficult to identify the best possible inclusion criteria, I don't see a case that it can't be done. Galleries of flags are classic encyclopedic content, while Wikipedia is not paper, that is in my opinion not a reason to exclude content that is typically found in a print encyclopedia. Kusma (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of the problems with sourcing and unclear qualifications for inclusion are valid but the article is a very useful one and is classic encyclopedic content as others have pointed out. — AjaxSmack 03:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very useful content on a little known topic. Content is no different than that which can be found in a paper encyclopedia (if they actually had room for it). Great idea! Scanlan (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 William Sweeney. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William John Sweeney[edit]

Delete Although both of them have this name, neither of them seem to have been known as 'William John Sweeney' and it is thus highly unlikely that someone would type this in looking for either entry. We also do not encourage people to set up dabs of those who share more than a personal name, as it could get completely out of hand - every William Alan Smith, every William A. Smith, every William Smith (musician) etc. and we would be inundated with dabs which pretty much duplicate each other. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to William Sweeney (composer). This disambiguation page is superfluous to William Sweeney. Splitting them up by middle name in this case isn't helpful to navigation. • Anakin ^(talk) 19:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a disambig page, I'm fine with it. If it can help make Wikipedia more clear and easier to navigate, I got no problems.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a perfectly good dab page - William Sweeney. Who needs a second one with only two items, both of which are already on the other dab page? Redirect to William Sweeney. No need for two dab pages, especially when neither William John Sweeney article has "John" in the title. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the suggestion to redirect to the composer because there's a mention of him as such? I Googled the full name and couldn't find any non-WP mentions of 'William John Sweeney'. Boleyn (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested it only because he was called that at the top of the article about him so I assumed he might be commonly called that. But if there are no other references to him like that, and since this DAB page isn't linked to from anywhere in article space except for the redirect William John Sweeney (disambiguation), then it seems like the page isn't at all useful, so I'd happily support a simple delete and no redirect. • Anakin ^(talk) 13:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think deletion is the best option, although there are valid arguments for a redirect to either one or the William Sweeney dab (although it's very unlikely that it would be useful and it could cause confusion). Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to William Sweeney. I'm a fan of keeping redirects to disambiguation pages, rather than just deleting them, especially when it will prevent someone from re-creating a deleted page in the future. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to redirect to William Sweeney as this seems to be the majority, although, as stated before, I'm happy if the final decision is to delete or to redirect to the WS dab. Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Adeyemi[edit]

Sadly, not yet notable. Player has come through youth ranks and has yet to make debut in a competitive game. Dweller (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as footballer fails criteria for WP:ATH. Recreate if and when he ever makes an appearance in a fully-professional league/competition or recieves substantial media coverage to pass WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Jimbo; not yet notable. Giant Snowman 08:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hasn't received enough media coverage or played professional football. Spiderone (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletes addressed the concern over whether one goal was enough to consitute notability. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Xinos[edit]

Footballer in non-professional league (Andorra). A number of google hits but no history information other than he scored a goal in the 1st elimination round of the Uefa cup (a round for the champion teams of 4 micronations) I feel he fails criteria of wp:football.Prod contested on the grounds of the scored goal but this raises the question of wp:1E Porturology (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Porturology (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should stay . A lot of footballers like Xinos have an article on wikipedia. Xinos scored a goal in the elimination of Champions League and it happens no often for Andorran clubs. - Keep Osmanek (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has scored a goal in the Champions League Eldumpo (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable for his Champion's League goal. Nfitz (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He played in the Champions League for an amateur team from Andorra against another amateur team from San Marino. This goal would not include him in the running for the Champions League's top scorer award, so I do not believe it is notable. – Pee Jay 19:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PeeJay; he scored while playing for an amateur team, against an amateur team, in the QUALIFYING rounds of the competition - not notable, sorry. Giant Snowman 08:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scoring in the qualifying for the FA Cup isn't notable and neither is this case. Spiderone (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preliminary round games do not confer notability. --Angelo (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn Marasmusine (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spewer[edit]

Can not find any reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage of this game to establish notability. I found a couple of sources that mention the game in passing but no significant coverage. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nomination based on new information that I missed on my search for sources. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as non-notable. Crafty (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep following the addition of references. Crafty (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep review on Jay is Games, piece on indiegames.com (part of the Gamasutra network), another piece on The Escapist, it's on Destructoid's regular indie column. Someone another 14:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now cited. Someone another 15:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. It's also in MacLife magazine - online version here, there's a short piece from Derek Yu on his website TIGSource here (fine little bit of reception info). I can has cake? Someone another 16:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now cited. That's it for sources as far as I can see. Someone another 17:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Someone another 15:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now that Someone another has found several references, I can't see any reason to delete this. It certainly seems notable. —LedgendGamer 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Broadway"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Broadway"

Little indication of notability, vague mention of a future DVD release date, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no references to support assertions of notability, those that exist are scant. SGGH ^ping! 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It sounds like a typical garage-band, but with animation instead of music. Is there a term for that? Garage-animators? In any event, no notability, no verification, and I could go on. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Repetition of names gives it away as vanity. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot verify a Chris Mercer[13][14][15][16], a Mark Barber[17], or a Zac Sutton[18] as invloved with any production called Broadway... nor can I confirm Chris Mercer, Dana Anderson[19][20][21][22], Brooke Anderson[23][24][25][26][27][28], Jayden Payne[29], or Mark Barber as being in the voice cast of any series called Broadway, nor can I confirm the existance itself of any 2009 TV series by that name[30]. The author has edited only this one article[31]. At the very best, the article is far too premature. At the worst, it's a hoax. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lau Nim Yat[edit]

~~Hasn't played professional football~~ Spiderone (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 08:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The top league in Hong Kong is professional with the following AFC document showing that the top team of each club in Hong Kong has at least 16 players under professional contract [32]. His profile linked to from the article indicates he has been picking up cards playing in the top division, so appears to pass WP:ATHLETE. Camw (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My computer for some reason locked up before I could closely examine the PDF, but I'd guess that if the PDF says that, we can probably add it to the list of fully professional leagues. Out of curiosity, does it address the professionality of other Asian leagues? In which case, it could be quite valuable toward sourcing and fleshing out the WP:FOOTY list of fully professional leagues. matt91486 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, for the majority of AFC overseen leagues it does confirm yes or no, there are some that are more vague that would be addressed by an updated spreadsheet but I haven't been able to find one. Camw (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have gone to Camw's link page which confirms the professional status of the Hong Kong league Eldumpo (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays in Hong Kong First Division League, a professional league according to Hong Kong football league system. I wonder why at least two members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football do not check notability in the internet and instead trying to delete dozens of articles like this in only some days. --Ilion2 (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plays in fully-professional league. Nfitz (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Gyamfi[edit]

~~See here and here. He hasn't played for a professional team.~~ Spiderone (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 08:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays for two clubs in the Ghana Premier League, a professional league as you can read since today in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues [33], added by Spiderone himself. To sad that Spiderone do not come back here to correct his deletion argument/vote. --Ilion2 (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plays in fully-professional league as noted in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does anyone have proof that he's played a league game? Spiderone (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Shouldn't this better be done by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football instead of creating or just voting in an AfD? Hope this http://www.goal.com/en/news/89/africa/2009/05/04/1245755/ghana-hearts-of-oak-extend-lead is enough. You wrote "He hasn't played for a professional team.", what is your source for this? --Ilion2 (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. or merge, No consensus rather then keep because the view does be that this should be redirected or merged but not where. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common End, Derbyshire[edit]

The place is named on a map but WP:ITEXISTS is not enough to meet WP's criteria for inclusion. Common End is not a village in its own right, it does not have separate census data, I could not find it in the Domesday Book. If there were a single line that met WP's notability I would already have merged it into the article about whichever town or village it is in (though I cannot even find out what that would be), but without even one line to add to such an article a redirect would fail the principle of least astonishment test, so even merge is unacceptable. ClickRick (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ClickRick (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any significant coverage from GNews, GScholar or GBooks. Mentioned in some gazeteers and censuses in GBooks but seems to be only in passing, and referring to it as a "locality". OS Map on Multimap shows it to be between Holmewood, Stainsby and Astwith but considerably smaller than any of them – looks to be only about half a dozen buildings, so at most a hamlet rather than a village. --Qwfp (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it's a shame that the gbooks you link to either don't have previews or else don't conclusively show that it is the name of a settlement as opposed to the name of a vague area. ClickRick (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. That this place exists is easily verifiable, but given that there seems to be nothing else verifiable about it I cannot see it ever becoming anything more than this. Given that there are at least two Common Ends in Norfolk (articles recently deleted) and one in Cumbria (article no larger than this one) in addition to this one in Derbyshire, what I propose is merging this, the Cumbira ones and the information from the now-deleted Norfolk ones, to Common End. That page should be a note that there are several very small settlements in England with this name, then list them with their coordinates and links to nearby settlement(s). This way we keep the information and it allows expansion at a later date if more information is ever found. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is intriguing as an idea. What would be the basis of such an article, though? If there were a 3rd party source which listed them and discussed either them or the name which they share then I would unreservedly agree. ClickRick (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well the maps, gazetters and censuses Qwfp mentions are enough to verify the existence, and as consensus is clear that all verifiably real places are notable that should be sufficient. The article would effectively be a list of places with the name "Common End", and so we don't really need third party discussion or even linkage between them. If anything can be found about the name "Common End" then yes we should absolutely include that (I've not looked, but wouldn't be surprised if something exists) but it isn't necessary. The contents of the list would be the location (description including nearby places and parish, local authority, co-ordinates [all empirically verifiable]) and anything else verifiable we can say about them. Think of it as a combination list/disambig if that helps. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The existence of the places has not been questioned. However, I do have to take issue with your assertion that "consensus is clear that all verifiably real places are notable". There have been essays written on the subject, such as WP:Notability (Geographic locations) (by Sebwite) and WP:Notability (geography) (by Rividian), but they are just essays and I see a distinct lack of consensus, with one having been nominated for deletion and the other having a talk page which is too long to take in all in one go. There is no question of notability for civil parishes and anything larger, but for smaller places it's much less clear. WP:AFDP#Places helps to a degree (all four of the places called Common End would come under the heading of "Smaller suburbs" in that context), as does the second paragraph of WP:UKCITIES, but they still require something to be said about the place rather than simply listing it and saying where it is. ClickRick (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - While I agree that consensus for subdivisions, suburbs, etc that have no distinct identity from the settlement they are part of is that they should be merged or deleted. However that is not what we are dealing with here - these are distinct settlements, as evidenced by your nomination statement that a merge or redirect to any one of the surrounding places is not appropriate. As far as I can see there is no essay, guideline or policy that deals with these very small independent populated places that verifiably exist, but about which nothing more can currently be said, so there is no point citing them (the essays, etc). My solution allows Wikipedia to have the complete geographic coverage by having one article about these places instead of four short sub-stubs. In essence it is the same in spirit as the merge of subdivisions to the larger spirit - i.e. we merge articles about areas we can say little or nothing about to a suitable article. In this case the suitable target article is Common End rather than the article about a different place. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I fail to see how you managed to draw the inference that this is a "distinct" place from what I said. An isolated place, yes, but that is far from the same thing. As to what else you say, you appear to be arguing in circles: first you asserted that there is a consensus which says that the place would be notable merely because it is "verifiably real", an assertion which I refuted by citing the lack of consensus in the essays and the lack of a guideline on the topic we discuss here, but then you turned around and said that there was no point in citing them because they fail to deal with that same subject. As to merging into a larger article, I simply invite anyone to offer even one sentence which can be added to that article which meets WP's criteria for inclusion. ClickRick (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia doesn't have criteria for inclusion, it has criteria for things that should not be included (WP:CSD) and guidelines for what should be. Everything else is included or deleted based on consensus at discussions such as this one. Regarding "I fail to see how you managed to draw the inference that this is a "distinct" place from what I said.", you stated that you cannot find what village it is part of - this is because it is not part of any village, it is a small isolated settlement not a district, suburb, subdivision, neighbourhood or other area - reliable sources such as the ordnance survey map clearly mark it as distinct from the surrounding settlements. My suggestion for a single article is to be a list of places with this name and co-ordinates, and any more information can be found and added. I am proposing this as a compromise between the "all real inhabited places are automatically notable" and "there is not enough information for an article" positions. Why are you so insistent that this be deleted? Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place, referenced to the Ordnance Survey - and where do we say that it needs to be in the Domesday Book to be notable? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do I say that that's the only place it needs to be? I was merely showing examples of instances where places can be referenced in order to be notable. Is it for me to enumerate all the places is could be or is for you to find a reference to the place and offer it? I believe it's the latter. We have already established that its mere existence as a real place is insufficient on its own to warrant a WP article (see WP:ITEXISTS), so what other notability could we come up with? I've tried and failed, but you're not offering anything. ClickRick (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge. This article exists, I believe, because its on a list of places in England/Derbyshire. The question I ask is why anyone would want it. Well (speaking from Derbyshire) there are only two marginal reasons. 1. someone found it on Ordnance Survey and want to know more 2. Someone found it in the list and want to find out more. Now in both cases the answer is (cos I looked) that there is very little to know. That is what the article says....! there is very little. There is a farm there and for some long forgotten reason its on Ordnance Survey. The only solution is keep (if in line with policy) or better still merge with the parish which I believe is Ault Hucknall. I don't believe deletion achieves much... but I can see that some may want to delete something and this is a very marginal case. (and merge is still an option). Victuallers (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary, it is keeping or merging which serves nothing. There is nothing to say about the place beyond "it appears on a map". If the article, such as it is, is deleted and then someone finds something notable to say about it then it can soon enough be recreated, but keeping what is currently there cannot be considered an option, and if there is not even a single sentence to add to any other article about it then merge cannot be considered an option either. ClickRick (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant information (of which there is precious little) to the place of which it is administratively part, if that can be identified; if not, delete. There's no inherent notability to a half-dozen houses that happen to have a collective name on one map. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please volunteer even a single sentence which can sensibly be added to the article of the parish, such that a redirect would make sense. ClickRick (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to its parish, allegedly Ault Hucknall. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please volunteer even a single sentence which can sensibly be added to the article of the parish, such that a redirect would make sense. ClickRick (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, you should explain why you think that having sentences transferred is a pre-requisite for redirection, given that Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for? implies no such requirement. Uncle G (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "First"? I already did, in the opening nomination statement. WP:R#PLA says, and I quote: "We follow the "principle of least astonishment" — after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?". Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place." This can only be done if there is a sentence in the target article which explains the connection. —ClickRick (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't believe that the parish is a good merge target, but if others think it is, then it is easy to construct a sentence along the lines of "The parish contains the small settlement of Common End, located between the villages of X, Y and Z in the north|south|east|west|centre|etc of the parish." What is your next objection? Thryduulf (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I shall AGF about your question and re-read it as "Would that be acceptable?" My reply will be yes once someone can show reliably sourced, verifiable evidence that the place is actually a settlement and not merely the name of an area, as would appear to be the case with Hardstoft Common (a mile SSW from Common End, according to the OS map) which shows no evidence of houses. My concern is that we would otherwise fall into the trap of original research and ascribe to the place a status which it should not have. We already know that the article was created with such original research, in that it was called a village, though this has since been corrected. ClickRick (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this a settlement? has it ever been inhabited? has someone checked earlier maps? or the VCH? If nothing more can be found it should be merged with a redirect, so anyone coming here will at least know whatever little is known. . I favor keeping all inhabited places or places with a distinct geographic identity, but this seems to be neither, at least based on current information. DGG (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a settlement that is currently inhabited which is shown on the modern OS map and the 1844 OS map. Thryduulf (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What about individual isolated farms? These are inhabited places that in the UK are marked and named on Ordnance Survey maps and many have a verifiable existence going back several hundred years. Are you arguing for having an article or redirect for these? If not, we have to draw the line somewhere. Qwfp (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's worse than that, though. The creator of this article has defended it here with the defence that "it's a real place named on the OS map". Looking at the Streetmap version of this particular place, it is certainly named, and there are also certainly farms named, which is your point, but there's also Stainsby Common. However, there are no buildings indicated on the map which would be associated with either Stainsby Common or Common End, and yet the article's creator's view would be that both are somehow notable simply by dint of being named on this map. I strongly disagree with that view, and believe that a higher bar of notability is required, one which would perhaps allow for all places which were "census units" but which would exclude places, such as Common End, about which there is nothing of encyclopaedic value to say. ClickRick (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If being a census unit were the inclusion criteria, nearly all village and hamlet articles would be deleted; that is not the community's position, however, so the extreme position you advocate is contrary to consensus to delete material from the encyclopedia. One thing WP is supposed to be is a gazetteer. The OS's gazetteer has it, but soon we won't. So much for our five pillars. That's what's worse. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:5#1: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". (My italics). Qwfp (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information: postcode.royalmail.com reveals that the postal address of properties in Out Lane, the road through Common End (including Holme Farm shown on the OS 1:25000 map and Lane End Farm shown in the photo File:Out Lane 605403 b3106350.jpg in the current article), is "Out Lane, Stainsby Common, Heath, CHESTERFIELD, S44 5RL". So the postal address doesn't include "Common End". Not entirely sure if this is relevant, but having found it out… Qwfp (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You succeeded in that search where I failed, then. One of the other places called Common End turned out to be nothing more than the name of a road. ClickRick (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lu'kas Porter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lu'kas Porter

Mostly unreferenced article about an advocate on African-American and LGBT issues: substantially POV in his favour and reads almost like a résumé. The only sources are two "non-profit human rights organizations" that are surely not independent of the subject, and likely not reliable. Source #3 appears to be some sort of forum, and it's definitely a small group that doesn't meet our reliability standards — and the source gives no substantial coverage, only saying that he works in connexion with this group. Moreover, two of the three sources (from the same organisation) are dead links, and as the article was just created today, there's no reason to expect that the links have rotten between when they were added to the article and right now. In short — clearly nonnotable. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No hits at all at Google News. Google showed 135 references. However, all were either Facebook - Blogs - MySpace or Wikipedia mirror sites. Without 3rd party - independent - creditable -verifiable sources there is no way to establish notability. Thanks 15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete - absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. For that matter, there's not much int he way of coverage even from unreliable sources (not that it matters). -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletes addressed the concern over whether one goal was enough to consitute notability. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Xinos[edit]

Footballer in non-professional league (Andorra). A number of google hits but no history information other than he scored a goal in the 1st elimination round of the Uefa cup (a round for the champion teams of 4 micronations) I feel he fails criteria of wp:football.Prod contested on the grounds of the scored goal but this raises the question of wp:1E Porturology (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Porturology (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should stay . A lot of footballers like Xinos have an article on wikipedia. Xinos scored a goal in the elimination of Champions League and it happens no often for Andorran clubs. - Keep Osmanek (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has scored a goal in the Champions League Eldumpo (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable for his Champion's League goal. Nfitz (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He played in the Champions League for an amateur team from Andorra against another amateur team from San Marino. This goal would not include him in the running for the Champions League's top scorer award, so I do not believe it is notable. – Pee Jay 19:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PeeJay; he scored while playing for an amateur team, against an amateur team, in the QUALIFYING rounds of the competition - not notable, sorry. Giant Snowman 08:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scoring in the qualifying for the FA Cup isn't notable and neither is this case. Spiderone (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preliminary round games do not confer notability. --Angelo (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GSV Sleeper Service[edit]

Some kind of ship from a fictional work. WP:NOT#PLOT prohibits articles for plot only descriptions of works of fiction. In addition, WP:WAF establishes that articles about topics in fictional universes must be independently notable, as established by reliable, independent sources. WP:INUNIVERSE outlines some of the problems keeping articles solely devoted to plot details. Was kept for silly procedural reasons here, but even the sources provided do not establish that the ship is at all important outside the series, only that the series itself is notable. Savidan 05:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first section after the intro contains coverage by third-party sources, with links and refs. I'd say that passes "independently notable, as established by reliable, inependent sources". Ironholds (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's sourced, linked, and referenced. Nomination reflects an overly narrow view of fictional notability. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reasons as above. Stephenb (Talk) 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If it is discussed in a reputable book on SF , then it certain is notable by almost any version of the guideline. Whether it ought to be merged is a matter or style, and an editorial decision. I would merge, on the basis that the content of this and the novel are complementary and would go better together (& a good deal of this is in the article on the novel already) --they really need to be read in conjunction. DGG (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced, and Wikipedia is not paper. There is no harm done in having book and ship separate. Ingolfson (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no true consensus, as it was essentially tied for keep and merge. There's no reason relevant bits cannot be merged with a redirect put in place without another AFD. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melt sandwich[edit]

This article is overly broad, according to the article every sandwich served hot with melted cheese is a melt sandwich - as is shown in the see also section. One contributor is trying to create a new category of sandwich that doesn't exist. The article was originally about the tuna melt, which is covered in the tuna sandwich article, but was converted to this earnest but contrived and uncited (possibly uncitable) article. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmm sandwich. Delete as per the nom-thingy. Crafty (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This really is a legit category of sandwich. A grilled cheese with something else added in gives you a patty melt, a tuna melt, a Reuben. But is it an encyclopedic subject? Maybe a "List of melt sandwiches" would be better, in which case, don't forget the Reuben! Mmmmmm, Reuben sandwich. ReverendWayne (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid sandwich. Popular term. Article could use a bit of sauce but I don't see why we shouldn't have one. • Anakin ^(talk) 16:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to sandwich. Even if it is a popular term and a legitimate sandwich category, I don't see anything to indicate it warrants its own page, rather than a mention or subsection on the sandwich article. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Man that looks good. It's a likely search term, thus it would require a redirect and no need to delete the page (also, might be good to preserve the history of a legit subject that isn't notable by itself). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "NOM NOM NOM" Mmmm, yummy. Article has potential to be expanded with sources, history of the melt sandwich and other encyclopedic information. --BsayUSD [Talk]π[contribs] 20:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eat and then Merge to ~~Sandwich~~Grilled cheese sandwich, where it can incubate and be expanded and supported. Perhaps eventually there will be enough melt sandwich-specific information to warrant its own article, but definitely not now. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Use some common sense. Melt sandwiches are very well known, if anything, the article could be retitled but it certainly should not be deleted. 68.244.159.15 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to sandwich, if someone wants to come along at a later date and write an article which is actually reliably sourced and not just personal opinion, they're more than welcome to do so. --Stormie (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to sandwich, create a section & redirect (Then eat j/k). --TitanOne (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The merger opinions above don't seem adequately researched. ReverendWayne hasn't noticed that we already have Reuben sandwich, for example. This content describes a concept that appears identical to what is described at cheese sandwich#Grilled cheese sandwich, which seems to be the correct merger target, especially since that's where grilled cheese sandwich points. Sources agree. "What's a tuna melt but an open-faced grilled cheese [sandwich]?" asks ISBN 9780696226861 pp. 69. "You can glob a few spoons of [tuna salad] onto a piece of toast, add a slice of your cheese on top and broil it in the oven until the cheese melts. That would be a tuna melt.", says ISBN 9781419622427, pp. 122. Uncle G (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well spotted. I'm keeping my merge !vote, but changing my target to cheese sandwich#Grilled cheese sandwich. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Part of what kicked off the nomination of this article for AFD was a merger discussion for the article patty melt that took place in Talk:Cheeseburger#Proposed_merge. My observation there was that melt sandwich made a better merger target for patty melt than does cheeseburger because it can better handle melt sandwich variants that don't include hamburger patties, such as tuna melts. As Jeremy has noted, the melt sandwich article started out an article on tuna melts before it was broadened to handle melt sandwiches as a class. Pace Jeremy's opinion above, melts are indeed a class of sandwiches, which are often offered in diner and cafe style restaurants. Recipes for a Three-Cheese Melt as well as a Tuna Melt appear in the Culinary Institute of America's The New Professional Chef (The Culinary Institute of America 1996, pp. 921–922) harv error: no target: CITEREFThe_Culinary_Institute_of_America1996 (help) as grilled sandwiches. Beyond tuna and patty melts, it's easy to find melts of turkey, chicken and ham, chicken and bacon, ham and cheese,[34] spinach,[35], and the like. — VulcanOfWalden (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Unfortunately recipes do not connote notability - almost every food that is made has a recipe and is published somewhere however not all foodstuffs have articles about them. When dealing with foodstuffs you need more than a published recipe to establish notability; I did a search on the subject and only found recipes, no articles about them. That is my reason for nominating it for an AfD/merge - there is nothing that establishes notability. You can find dozens, even hundreds, of articles about cheeseburgers, but not about melts. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - When a dish makes its way into cookbooks, restaurant menus (sometimes under their own section, such as at Waffle House[36]), and restaurant reviews, it is indeed notable. Given the consistency in naming, it's easy to see the pattern and write a basic description, though the variability in the dish — some are toasted rather than grilled, some are open faced sandwiches rather than closed, some use rolls rather than slices of bread — does require a bit of care in writing a comprehensive one. Melts are a rather quotidian dish, lacking the fun legends and tall tales that surround many other culinary creations, but they are rather widespread.
    As a side note, the difference in meaning between toasted sandwiches in the United States as compared to the United Kingdom adds another bit of complexity in writing good definitions. — VulcanOfWalden (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known class of food. Yes, it includes quite a lot of specific ones, but I do not see how that affects the notability. Because a tuna melt is a derivative of a simpler food does not make the other version less notable. Following this logic gives a single article on "cooked food"DGG (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reductio ad absurdum ("…a single article on "cooked food") is not a particularly sturdy platform on which to stand when debating. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melt sandwich references[edit]

The Culinary Institute of America (1996), Donovan, Mary Deirdre (ed.), The New Professional Chef, with forewords by Paul Bocuse and Ferdinand Metz (6th ed.), New York, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, ISBN 0-442-01961-0

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omphalophobia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

In the three years since this article was first deleted, the subject seems to have gained only a tiny amount of traction; it does seem to exist but its notability is questionable at best. Still no coverage evident in reliable sources in a search of Google News. I can be convinced, but the refs that are currently in the article don't do it for me. If the best we can come up with are a web list, a snippet of a scholarly paper talking about a "borderline psychotic", and a blog entry, this probably belongs in Wiktionary and not here. Possibly if such an entry is created there, we can link to it from here. (As always, I have no prejudice against keeping the article if notability can actually be shown; I looked and I can't find it myself.) Frank | talk 12:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been going back an forth with the author of this article over his use of blogs and forums as references. Since no legitimate references can be found other than a dictionary entry that indicates the word might exist, I agree with the nominator that the article should be included at Wiktionary at best. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if the only reliable source on this subject is a dictionary, we can't possibly have an actual encyclopedia article about it. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I didn't suspect this comment was intended as irony, I'd say this could be speedily deleted as an author request. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as provided by the nominator. Crafty (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian trains[edit]

Indian railways runs thousands of trains; Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a directory to list all of them. Most of the trains listed in this "list" do not have their own articles. —SpaceFlight89 10:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This is better served as a category, and it exists as such - Category:Named passenger trains of India. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 13:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and SpacemanSpiff. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of named passenger trains of India. ----DanTD (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note -- This is for the same reason as List of passenger trains. ----DanTD (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of improvements. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria–Greece relations[edit]

v t e Bilateral AfD arguments
Delete	D1 Just another random pairing of countries with no significant relationship D2 No independent sources are given and none show up on a Google search apart from sports results D3 None of the sources discusses the relationship itself, just random barrel-scrapings on trivial events like treaties, state visits etc. D4 These are two obscure little countries in Africa or Asia or Australia or somewhere like that. Their relations cannot possibly be notable.
Keep	K1 A Google search with the names of the two countries shows many results K2 Since being nominated the article has been expanded with several reliable independent sources K3 All bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable K4 The article has a picture of the heads of state meeting - if Wikimedia accepted the picture, it must be notable
Comment	C1 You clearly do not understand my point - please read what I said C2 Your argument is irrelevant - check WP:POLICY. C3 My argument is entirely based on WP:POLICY - read it. C4 Bandy is an important sport in several countries, and competing in the world Bandy championships is enough to establish a notable relationship.
Please cite your arguments by number in the discussion below If you do not find an appropriate argument in one of the lists above, please edit this template (click "e" at the top left) and add your argument

whilst they have embassies and a few "cooperation" agreements, almost all their coverage is multilateral not bilateral. [37], looking at the first 60 items of this search not much happening. Greek Foreign Minister met the Algerian president for 2 hours and visit by a defence minister in 2003 don't make for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @493 · 10:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources covering the actual topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- these xy nation articles need some policy discussion. I cannot see anything of any note but I am sure that plenty will claim a priori notability. Policy needed!!! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep K2. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Multilaterals don't give notability to bilateral relations. Nor does a 2 hour chat session between leaders. Now maybe if there was a horse shoe tourney to be dug up, that might make it all change. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep K2. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to see here. That Algeria is "6th among Greece's Arab trade partners" (as opposed to what, 60th overall?) has no contextual relevance to "Algeria–Greece relations"; neither do a couple of conversations or pieces of paper signed. (Most states today have some sort of interaction; the question is if multiple, independent sources identify that as notable). And please, the fact that the two were both bits of the Ottoman Empire has zero to do with relations between the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria and the Hellenic Republic (the purported topic). Or do you perhaps have sources establishing otherwise? - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article under discussion has had new information added that addresses concerns raised in this AFD at this point in the discussion.

I have added some content. More visits, section on migration etc. Quite a lot going on. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per K2, User Aymatth2 has done a good job of finding information to add into the article. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article is about Algeria–Greece relations. I don't think it has yet reached a size where it should be turned into a summary article with links to other articles on more specific sub-topics such as "History of contacts between Greeks and Berbers", "Official Relations between the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria and the Hellenic Republic" or "Algerians in Greece", but welcome advice. The article only skims over the most obvious aspects of the relationship. A rich and complex subject. Music, cuisine, language ... Aymatth2 (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Nuru Dini[edit]

~~A Google search yields nothing except the external link already on there. I can't even find a mention on his club's website and he fails WP:ATHLETE regardless~~ Spiderone (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 08:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 09:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in the Ghana Premier League, the highest association football league in Ghana. Professional league as can be read in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Please do not forget to search for Mohammed Dini, this will help here. Source for playing a game : http://www.libertypros.com/h/search_213_1.html. --Ilion2 (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Adjei[edit]

This whole article is basically an advert and his "biography" is a post on a forum. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE for not playing professionally Spiderone (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 08:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 09:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays for Liberty Professionals F.C. in the Ghana Premier League, a professional league as you can read since today in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues [38], added by Spiderone himself. To sad Spiderone do not come back here to correct his deletion argument/vote. --Ilion2 (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plays in professional league as discussed above. Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Nfitz. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 09:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, article kept. The subject meets WP:ATHLETE standards. JamieS93 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wahid Mohammed[edit]

~~I can't find evidence that he even exists let alone passes WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. The link given is broken implying that he's either been released or never ever played there~~ Spiderone (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 08:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 09:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You only need to do a very quick google search to find that he did play for them, for example at http://www.modernghana.com/sports/56001/2/liberty-are-there.html. Maybe nominators and deletionists should bother to do that from time to time themselves rather than leaving misleading statements or simply typing delete on the grounds of the nominators reasons? 8lgm (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think trivial mention are enough for him to pass WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. Spiderone (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plays in fully-professional league as noted in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in the Ghana Premier League, the highest association football league in Ghana. Professional league as can be read in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Source that he really played e. g. : http://www.libertypros.com/h/search_32_1.html. --Ilion2 (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tounde Adekounle[edit]

Has only played in the Togolese league and the Togo U17 which isn't enough to meet requirements Spiderone (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 08:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability.Giant Snowman 09:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played international football with US Masséda in the CAF Confederation Cup 2008. Correct name is possibly Tunde Adekounle - started discussion on the relevant discussion pages. --Ilion2 (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "international" football - that would be between two nations, not two clubs - but it's still enough to keep him. Giant Snowman 09:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please rewrite CAF Confederation Cup when you know it better. At the moment there you can read "is an international club association football competition". And please do not forget to rewrite CAF Confederation Cup 2008 too, there are clubs from Togo, Liberia, Gabon, Uganda and so on listed as competing in this cup. --Ilion2 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to work toward rewriting these articles too, you know. matt91486 (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should i rewriting these articles when there is no reason to do so? Just because someone who was not able to check the article correct for notability says they are totally wrong? --Ilion2 (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you just asked him to? matt91486 (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should not try to be ironic in other languages than my native language. --Ilion2 (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. Moved to User:T12009/McDonald Park Schools and redirect the mainspace article to Mount Gambier, South Australia#Education (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald Park Schools[edit]

If this was anything other than a school article, it quite possibly could be speedy deleted. There is zero evidence provided that the topic is in any encyclopedic. With all due respect to the creators, this project is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Perhaps a dedicated SchoolWiki would be a better place for these unsourced, unencyclopedic topics. Mattinbgn\^talk 07:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 07:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable primary school. The article's text suggests that this may be a school project, but that doesn't give them a free pass against WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move : Just move it to a user page. It isn't useful to a read as-is and they want to develop it as a learning experience. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Nerdseeksblonde - Epson291 (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy in a spirit of good faith. Failing that delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mount Gambier, South Australia#Education where it is already mentioned. TerriersFan (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy looks like a school project in good faith, as Crafty says.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy -Falcon8765 (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has withdrawn and IMHO this discussion has enough participation and has been open long enough for a full "keep". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Cut-Glass (album)[edit]

NN album by barely (if at all) notable artist. Two reviews are not sufficient to indicate notability. →ROUX ₪ 07:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. I am not convinced of notability, but as usual someone has made it far too unpleasant to bother continuing with this. → ROUX ₪ 12:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd like to add reviews from here, here, here and here to the ones already linked to in the article. Meets WP:GNG, and please read WP:BEFORE. The notability of the artist is also not in question. Thanks sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or--radical idea--you could assume that I am well aware of WP:BEFORE and Pitchfork did not come up in a Google search, as Google tailors results to individual searchers. → ROUX ₪ 09:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources are available via Google, it's not too hard to find them - that's how three of the four sources I mentioned above were found. Let us not forget that there were already two independent reliable sources in the article prior to the nomination. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And, again--try reading this time: those sources didn't appear in Google when I searched. You might also note my nomination statement: "Two reviews are not sufficient to indicate notability." Seriously, it would behoove you to pay attention to what people say; this is a recurring problem at AfD. → ROUX ₪ 11:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @494 · 10:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability asserted and appropriate references provided etc etc. Crafty (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews that were already in the article per-AfD nomination. I feel 2 reviews is enough since the guidelines call for significant coverage in reliable sources. The reviews specifically target the album, so are significant. There is more than one of them so that meets sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 04:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolo Tomassi / Mirror! Mirror! Split[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rolo Tomassi / Mirror! Mirror! Split

NN album, no evidence of significant (or indeed any) mainstream coverage. →ROUX ₪ 07:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rolo Tomassi.--Michig (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, zero evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @494 · 10:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:JBsupreme. Cs-wolves (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources have been added, but this AfD has not established whether they show notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Line[edit]

This is an article about a Babylon 5 battle which is not notable outside of the series. The article is 100% plot summary of Babylon 5 and contains no hint of an indication that this battle is in any way notable other than as part of Babylon 5. Wikipedia is not the Babylon 5 wiki. WP:NOT#PLOT makes clear that Wikipedia is not the place for plot-only summaries of fictional works. WP:WAF cautions against large amounts of in-universe content, and makes clear that articles about events from fiction must be notable in their own right. WP:INUNIVERSE explains more of the pitfalls of keeping articles like this. Savidan 07:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable plot element of a major fictional universe which has received print coverage outside the work itself. See Google News and Google Books references. No objection to massive cleanup, but this article needs surgery, not a bullet in the head. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, sources have written about the plot of Babylon 5, and some have mentioned the words "Battle of the Line"; I am not arguing against including any plot summary or mention of the Battle of the Line in the Babylon 5 article. That is a different animal entirely than saying that the Battle of the Line is independently notable outside of the Babylon 5 universe. The sources that come up on those searches are trivial mentions, not entire published works about the battle itself. Those two links come up with a grand total of 15 trivial mentions. In addition to only trivially mentioning the battle, half of them are to non-reliable sources (e.g. Lew Rockwell.com). The first google books hit is even quoting the Wikipedia article itself! I don't think you could scrape together two whole sentences of article if you restricted yourself to what could be cited to those articles; the only possible purpose for having an entire article as opposed to mentioning this in the Babylon 5 article is to overload on plot summary. Savidan 07:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very narrowly construing notability requirements for fictional elements in a way that does not have widespread consensus. Likewise, there is not a widespread consensus that WP:SS split-outs for fictional topics are allowed ad infinitum. Consensus seems to lie somewhere between the two extremes, and The Battle of the Line is a recurring element throughout the first season of Babylon 5. If you want to help me upgrade the Babylon 5 articles to a year/season based format like more currently created television show articles have, I'd be happy to have this merged there--again, with appropriate cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In doing my research for my !vote on this, I came across the index of Babylon 5 articles and my jaw hit the floor. I mean, Babylon 5 is a major fictional universe and I was expecting it to have several articles, but the sheer number of individual articles we have on it beggars belief. Category:Babylon 5 has eleven subcategories. It's insane: a totally ludicrous number. We need to go through the whole thing merging them into a smaller number of longer articles, and in the process, taking a large axe to all the in-universe stuff.
For Battle of the Line, I'm going to go with merge to Earth-Minbari war, which is presently a redirect, but needs to be resurrected as a separate article so we can merge other B5-related material to it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please help merge all the small articles! Most of this content stems from the early days of Wikipedia, before WP:N, before WP:CLT. I wholeheartedly agree that the entire area should be brought up to current standards. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid I fail to see the relevance of WP:CLT?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My mistake--I meant WP:CLN, but since Wikiproject Charlotte appears defunct, I redirected it to the same spot. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there are way too may articles that serve no purpose other than plot summary. But what makes you think that the "war" itself is notable outside the series? Savidan 07:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be the GNG.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly fails WP:NOT#PLOT. This article is also unsourced and is comprised of original research, and gives undue weight to fictional events that have never taken place rather than the real world context; it is completely devoid any information about the battle's literary development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis. There is no reasonable argument for keeping this article other than WP:IKNOWIT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to AGF. "There is no reasonable argument" does not. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - AGF does not mean assume that others are correct, only that they are not malicious. Savidan 18:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gavin.collins, would you care to revisit the article as it stands now and comment on how many of your objections have been rectified by my rewrite? Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyone who wants to understand what the series is about, will find this well written detailed article a valuable and interesting resource. Found in the television series, made for television movies, books, and the comic books. Dream Focus 23:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Earth-Minbari war unless enough sources can be found to justify spinning this article out from that one. Edward321 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a redirect? That's too funny. Jack Merridew 09:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; fictional events are viable subjects of articles (cf., e.g., The West Wing presidential election, 2006, Crisis_on_Infinite_Earths, etc.), and any problems with content can be resolved through WP:SOFIXIT rather than AFD.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge. They can be viable subjects, but its an editing decision. Whether kept or merged, I think the length ihere is excessive, but that's an editing decision also. And, what is more, the nomination gives no reason given why it should not be at least a redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason. Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In all fairness to the nominator, he DID redirect it... but to Babylon 5 in general. Better than simply nominating it out of hand, but still not useful to people seeking an explanaton of it. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and it was reverted. The next step would have been a discussion on the article talk p., not here. DGG (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, unsourced, original research, yada-yada... Redirect rather dubious as this is a rather generic term. Jack Merridew 09:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jack Merridew, would you care to revisit the article as it stands now and comment on how many of your objections have been rectified by my rewrite? Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I suppose I could use ((afdrescued)) here, but it really doesn't do justice to the hours I've spent adding sources, trimming the plot summary, and including refences to the storyline. Much was added, much was deleted, such that less than 50% of this article is the same as the nominated version. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The added refs pertain only to the significance to the plot. No notability outside of the plot is demonstrated or even asserted. Savidan 21:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. I disagree with your reading of fiction notability standards. There are multiple, non-trivial mentions in independent reliable sources: the GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to misrepresent WP:WAF. It clearly states that "the subjects real-world notability should be established" by the GNG. "Real-world" cannot mean importance to a fictional universe. Savidan 18:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the real world, this battle was depicted in multiple fictional works, multiple works commenting on those fictional works, specific comments were made by the series creator about how a cast change affected the storyline resolution, and it has been linked in commentary as an allegory to Dunkirk. I'm rather afraid that it's not me misrepresenting the GNG, it's you who's not understanding what existing consensus is regarding articles on fictional elements. What in addition to this could you possibly want? Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've never watched a single episode of Babylon 5, but in reading the article, this appears to be a critical point in the series that probably should have its own article. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE 2 Five days have passed since my rewrite, with no new delete or merge !votes, and neither of the non-nominator !voters returning to comment on my improvements. If anyone has any remaining issues, please raise them in the next 9 hours, as I will be out of town thereafter. Jclemens (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I have already pointed out that your rewrite did not address the fundamental concerns of myself or (presumably) the other users supporting deletion. If you really wish to "rewrite" the article, please find sources that write about the Battle of the Line in a way that does not merely summarize the plot. However, I suspect you have already been diligent in your research and come up with any sources that might exist. Savidan 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not presume that the !voters remain unsatisfied with the rewrite, much as I may not presume that they have been satisfied. Your objections are noted but not echoed by others; I remain convinced that they do not reflect consensus on how to write about fictional elements. Furthermore, were I truly done with the article, I would have submitted it to WP:GAN; other sources do exist that have not been integrated into the text. Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get all snooty about it. I was just trying to suggest to you what the next step should be if you truly wish to resolve any of the concerns stated here. There is no point in demanding that people repeat themselves just because you have edited the article in a way tangential to the primary argument against notability. Savidan 17:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to AGF--I wasn't calling you malicious, merely incorrect. Likewise, the tangentiality of my improvements is an issue that only you have brought up. I'm absolutely interested in resolving legitimate concerns, but do not believe your assertion that the article as it stands now lacks sufficient notability has any merit. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+1 peer-reviewed commentary source added. That's two independent reliable sources which are providing literary commentary on the plot element. So, even assuming for the sake of argument that the plot-related stuff is somehow inadmissable or inappropriate, the article subject still meets the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall consensus was a keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mali–Russia relations[edit]

a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, almost all multilateral [39]. there was a little bit of relations in 1961 in Soviet era [40], [41], and a Russian Government official rather than a senior Minister visited Mali in 2003 and said in diplomatic speak During discussion of questions pertaining to bilateral relations, the high level of understanding between Russia and Mali was noted and the mindset to step up joint work on the realization of the existing possibilities was reaffirmed including the usual The sides underlined the necessity of building up the efforts of the world community in the fight against international terrorism, and their readiness to closely cooperate in this sector. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is already enough information here for a stub to be built upon. - Epson291 (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recognising each other and having ambassadors is not enough for a bilateral article, could easily be covered in Foreign relations of X. LibStar (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @495 · 10:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough info that is reliable and notable for stand alone. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my usual argument: WP:GNG is the only applicable guideline for determining keep/delete, and it requires that for a topic to have a stand-alone article there must significant coverage (direct, detailed coverage in ideally multiple sources) in independent, secondary sources. I'm not seeing that here, so WP:GNG are not met, so the article should be deleted or merged. The article cites Russian and Malian gov't sources, but those are not independent and thus do not establish notability. This and this (cited in the article and by the nom) are independent and secondary, but at 50 and 38 word each, respectively, I would not consider this coverage "significant". Then there's this 28 word article, currently being used as ref--again, this anything but detailed coverage. This book on Mali has a few passing mentions of the Soviets, but again, nothing that constitutes direct detailed coverage of Soviet-Mali bilateral relations, so I don't establish notability. If someone can dig up something independent that actually covers this topic directly and in depth (i.e. more than a few hundred words), I'll reconsider, but for now I'm not seeing anything that suggests this "topic" is notable. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Comment. The question at hand isn't "Are there ample sources to write an article", rather it is (or should be): "Are there ample sources to write an encyclopedia article". There's a fundamental difference between writing, say, a research paper, thesis, or homework assignment on something on one hand, and writing a encyclopedia article on the other. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source; it's supposed to just summarize secondary sources and not generate new information or interpretation of a topic. It should not beat a new path. But a research paper, book, thesis, etc, is free to rely on primary sources in addition to secondary and tertiary sources, free to draw new conclusions, and free to explore a topic hitherto unexplored. What's happening in many of these bilateral articles--and this one is a prime example--is more akin to this later process than to writing an encyclopedia article. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is because we are creating an almanac entry, not an encyclopedia article. The foreign relations entries to me are the type of material found in an almanac. Some extraordinary relationships, such as Russia-United States have enough in-depth material for an encyclopedia article, the rest are just almanac entries, too large to fit into the corresponding tables. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yilloslime. There is nothing on the topic here, just on a collection of uncontextualized events.--BlueSquadronRaven 17:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Soviet aid makes it notable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
K2, K4. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Bilateral AfD arguments
Delete	D1 Just another random pairing of countries with no significant relationship D2 No independent sources are given and none show up on a Google search apart from sports results D3 None of the sources discusses the relationship itself, just random barrel-scrapings on trivial events like treaties, state visits etc. D4 These are two obscure little countries in Africa or Asia or Australia or somewhere like that. Their relations cannot possibly be notable.
Keep	K1 A Google search with the names of the two countries shows many results K2 Since being nominated the article has been expanded with several reliable independent sources K3 All bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable K4 The article has a picture of the heads of state meeting - if Wikimedia accepted the picture, it must be notable
Comment	C1 You clearly do not understand my point - please read what I said C2 Your argument is irrelevant - check WP:POLICY. C3 My argument is entirely based on WP:POLICY - read it. C4 Bandy is an important sport in several countries, and competing in the world Bandy championships is enough to establish a notable relationship.
Please cite your arguments by number in the discussion below If you do not find an appropriate argument in one of the lists above, please edit this template (click "e" at the top left) and add your argument

Probably should have seen something like this coming... --BlueSquadronRaven 16:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should have done it months ago - would have saved a huge amount of typing... Aymatth2 (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - International relations. Scanlan (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this seems WP:JUSTAVOTE, precedent from over 300 deleted bilateral articles shows that simply having relations does not equate to notable relations. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 300 were deleted that I am aware of, all were merged into larger articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LibStar on this. Just having relations does not establish notability. There must be reliable independent sources commenting on aspects of the relationship (which there are in this case). Many articles that did not meet that basic criterion were indeed deleted. Some factoids (e.g. embassy locations) were preserved in "Foreign relations of ..." articles, but the factoids were added to the parents during an independent clean-up effort, not as AfD merges. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, important bilateral relations, significant Soviet links. --Soman (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I discount the Soviet links because the Soviet Union and Russia aren't necessarily interchangble. Totally different govt. structure, philosophy and even geography. It's like going to a new Chinese restaurant and expecting to have the menu of the old Mexican restaurant that used to be in that building to still be relevent. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your example itself is faulty. Consider User:Russavia/Australia–Russia relations which I am working on. There is clearly a link between the relations of the Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russia. In terms of the Soviet Union, there should be no break because the international community regards Russia as the successor state to the Soviet Union, and therefore, Russia took on all treaties, responsibilities and 'debts' of the Soviet Union. Consider the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Russian Federation on Cooperation in the Use of Nuclear Energy for Peaceful Purposes which was signed in 2007, this agreement replaced the inforce agreement Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy which was signed by the Soviet Union and Australia in 1990. It is absolutely impossible to consider the foreign relations of Russia without considering the foreign relations of the state of which it is the successor state (Soviet Union), and the relations of the 'state' of which it is not a legal successor, but is widely regarded as its historical successor (Russian Empire). Based upon the argument you have presented, the Australian article I have linked to would, when I place it in mainspace in due course, should be swiftly be taken to AfD. If such a thing were to occur, I would expect such an AfD to be laughed down, because there is clearly links between the historical forms of Russia, and this is clearly recognised by the Russian and Australian governments, media, scholars and authors. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep During the Soviet period Mali was one of the USSR's major African allies, and there is plenty to write an article on. One may need to refer to Russian sources to get such information, which is available. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While on general principals I would lean to a keep, I would prefer more details of the relationship than what is currently in the article before I would comfortably vote to do so. (BTW, why isn't there a more general Africa-Russia relations? That would help establish which bilateral relations in this continent with the Soviet Union/Russia were notable.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the history of Soviet aid and current relations with Russia. The government in Moscow has always operated a superpower, whether it's the U.S.S.R. or the Russian Federation, and like any superpower, it maintains its interests worldwide. Mandsford (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I can't consider the Soviet Union and Russia as interchangeable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — a notable subject of inter-state relations (scale large enough) covered in acceptable way. --ssr (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources in the page show compliance with WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @087 · 01:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IJango[edit]

non-notable product; google returns nothing of use. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. No sources provided for verifiability and a web search produces no reliable sources except for a mention of an air base used during the Continuation War.[42] Article also has a secondary problem of being repeatedly used as a forum for advertising by a series of newly registered accounts that do nothing but edit this article. --Allen3 ^talk 10:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Animal Farm. There is little support for deletion, and some of the keeps seem to be based on WP:USEFUL or WP:HARMLESS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Cowshed[edit]

Also nominated:

There is no need for any of these articles. The plot of Animal Farm is adequately summarized in its own article. There is no need to create subarticles that attempt to replicate every single detail of the book for specific events. Doing such violates WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:INUNIVERSE. There is no indication that these events have any importance to anything other than being part of the book, and WP:WAF makes clear that notability for fictional things should be established as it would be real things. Savidan 05:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They read like half-assed student entries from Sparknotes. Redirect all to Animal Farm without merge. --EEMIV (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all--No objections to mergers, but these elements of Animal Farm are not covered in the main article. Jclemens (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Seven Commandments: it is almost certainly best as a separate article. There should be a very large amount of secondary sources about this, and about its cultural use in other works, and in politics. As for the others merge. They probably would do better combined in some way, but the talk pages are the place to discuss how. Nominating these together is indiscriminate,and shows a failure to understand what is important, both in terms of the study of literature, and in terms of what makes a good Wikipedia article.If the nom is in good faith, he should withdraw the Commandments from the AfD. DGG (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ — Notable elements of a notable work. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Windmill (Animal Farm). Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

striking above; since the Battle of the Windmill is to be merged, this then should be, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Windmill (Animal Farm), undue weight on the topic as it stands now... and the main article could use the good parts of this article to repair it, as it has too much original character synthetic analysis and not enough scholarly (i.e. cited) analysis ++Lar: t/c 23:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And stop trying to delete useful things. I just looked this up for interest. It is useful. We aren't running out of hard-drive space. Wik idea 13:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not useful as it stands, since it's uncited and disjoint. It belongs back in the main article. And if merged, a redirect would be left behind so the topic would still be findable. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all There is no need for this nomination as there are excellent alternatives to deletion, given that these topics are highly notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [and/or merge what little information is sourced to Animal Farm ]: WP:INUNIVERSE topics offering no intimation of real-world relevance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is wide of the mark as the article directly indicates the allegorical parallel typical of this work. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your invocation (via a pipe) of WP:POINT is both a non sequitor and in-WP:CIVIL -- kindly remove it. That story elements are allegories of the real world, does not necessitate relevance to the real world. In any case the allegorical aspect is only given vestigial coverage in the articles -- meaning that they in no way necessitate separate articles to cover this point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Warden comment is valid. This !vote with its argument from silence/argument from ignorance was almost certainly created because of Warden/Hrafn's differences in the recent edit history of Modern Theology stub. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Firefly322 for those inaccurate and irrelevant accusations. "Lack of evidence" (i.e. WP:RS in this instance) may not disprove a premise, but it does mean that WP:Notability hasn't been established. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Animal Farm. Artw (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of article improvements. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea-Bissau–Russia relations[edit]

v t e Bilateral AfD arguments
Delete	D1 Just another random pairing of countries with no significant relationship D2 No independent sources are given and none show up on a Google search apart from sports results D3 None of the sources discusses the relationship itself, just random barrel-scrapings on trivial events like treaties, state visits etc. D4 These are two obscure little countries in Africa or Asia or Australia or somewhere like that. Their relations cannot possibly be notable.
Keep	K1 A Google search with the names of the two countries shows many results K2 Since being nominated the article has been expanded with several reliable independent sources K3 All bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable K4 The article has a picture of the heads of state meeting - if Wikimedia accepted the picture, it must be notable
Comment	C1 You clearly do not understand my point - please read what I said C2 Your argument is irrelevant - check WP:POLICY. C3 My argument is entirely based on WP:POLICY - read it. C4 Bandy is an important sport in several countries, and competing in the world Bandy championships is enough to establish a notable relationship.
Please cite your arguments by number in the discussion below If you do not find an appropriate argument in one of the lists above, please edit this template (click "e" at the top left) and add your argument

even though both countries have embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of notable bilateral relations, [43]. yes there are passing mentions like the Russian foreign ministry being concerned about the situation in Guinea-Bissau (but many countries have had the same concerns), there was some violence near the Russian Embassy and a visit by Russia's Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations but these do not make for notable bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Refer to Kuwait–Russia relations for an example of what is valid for inclusion in such articles. As Guinea-Bissau was somewhat aligned to the USSR, their is more than enough notable information with which to build an article.[44][45] --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not nominating it because it's a stub, I'm nominating it because of a lack of significant third party coverage. not sure why you're pointing out an article that is far far superior to this? I am an experienced editor. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I showed that article because that article was merged (without discussion) based upon it not being a notable topic, obviously without a single search being performed to see if it would be notable. And it is the same case here. A search for "PAIGC+soviet" would soon reveal that Soviet-support for the PAIGC against the Portuguese was instrumental in Guinea-Bissau gaining independence, bringing the country into the Soviet sphere of influence.[46] There is more than enough to build this WP:STUB into an article in due course. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - There is already enough information here for a stub to be built upon. - Epson291 (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - you have to be joking; Sovs were the main backers of PAIGC and GB was a Soviet satellite. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
K2 Aymatth2 (talk)
Keep K2 --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previous Soviet relations should be discounted since the Soviet Union was an entirely different country. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me artificial to segment these relations articles that way -- should we segment South African international relations into pre-Apartheid, Apartheid and post-Apartheid. Seems excessive. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, the article on the United States starts in the 1600s. The article on Italy starts "200,000 years ago". This isn't about whatever the modern name of the country is, or the contemporary government. Every reference work treats the land as the topic, not the modern name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAN, I don't expect you to agree with me about anything, ever. That's a given. But your examples are faulty. Yes, the US article begins where it does, but articles about the US relations with most countries don't. If we use your line of reasoning, we'd start saying that since the US was once part of the UK, an article about the relations between the UK and the Philippines should automatically be notable based on everything in the US relations with them. The history of Italy should go back before formation of the country, it is part of their history. However relations are really between governments and when those governments change drastically, as happened in the Soviet Union, there should be a break in the relationship timeline. To me, this is like a restaurant closing and another one moving into its place, but you still think the old Chinese restaurants menu should be valid on the new Chinese restaurant because they both occupied the same building. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your example itself is faulty. Consider User:Russavia/Australia–Russia relations which I am working on. There is clearly a link between the relations of the Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russia. In terms of the Soviet Union, there should be no break because the international community regards Russia as the successor state to the Soviet Union, and therefore, Russia took on all treaties, responsibilities and 'debts' of the Soviet Union. Consider the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Russian Federation on Cooperation in the Use of Nuclear Energy for Peaceful Purposes which was signed in 2007, this agreement replaced the inforce agreement Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy which was signed by the Soviet Union and Australia in 1990. It is absolutely impossible to consider the foreign relations of Russia without considering the foreign relations of the state of which it is the successor state (Soviet Union), and the relations of the 'state' of which it is not a legal successor, but is widely regarded as its historical successor (Russian Empire). Based upon the argument you have presented, the Australian article I have linked to would, when I place it in mainspace in due course, should be swiftly be taken to AfD. If such a thing were to occur, I would expect such an AfD to be laughed down, because there is clearly links between the historical forms of Russia, and this is clearly recognised by the Russian and Australian governments, media, scholars and authors. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in not called "Guinea-Bissau–Russia government relations". You wrote: "If we use your line of reasoning, we'd start saying that since the US was once part of the UK, an article about the relations between the UK and the Philippines should automatically be notable based on everything in the US relations with them." I haven't a clue where that came from, I wrote: "Every reference work treats the land as the topic", and that is the exact opposite of what you are arguing. The article is about the land, not the present or past governments. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Russavia & Bigdaddy. This was one of the battlefields of the Cold War, fought between US & Soviet proxies (Portugal & the PAIGC, respectively). -- llywrch (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty to say about the relations between these countries, and the article is well sourced. Fences&Windows 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — a notable subject of inter-state relations (scale large enough) covered in acceptable way. --ssr (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid. you've posted this identical comment on several bilateral AfDs. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like you serially nominated for deletion several related articles. All of them have single general notability point, so I stated it as argument, as it really exists in all cases. I felt no need to detalize each case. It's up to admin whether to avoid it. --ssr (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason to delete this article. There is enough reliably sourced material in the page to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @087 · 01:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Council of Engineering Students[edit]

Non-notable organization. Here are all 24 Google hits. Deprodded by a new account. Abductive (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete WIkipedia is not a free web hosting service. --Paul McDonald (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails to meet notability criteria. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Atlantic Council of Engineering Students is certainly notable as the communication link between all Atlantic Canadian Schools. The ACES is a significant student organization in Eastern Canada. Mardaloop (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mardaloop is likely a sock of User:Azviz or similar. Abductive (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And needs to read our guidelines and not just tell us he thinks its important. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Snow delete. Malinaccier (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Nog[edit]

Non-notable Star Wars fan fiction character. Disputed PROD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fan fiction should be allowed as long as the page provides a disclaimer letting people know that it is fan fiction. Lord Nog (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @234 · 04:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSD - clearly vanity nonsense. --EEMIV (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete. Fan fiction is subject to the same rules as other articles. This one clearly fails: all original research, no independent reliable sources, no shred of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This belongs on star wars wiki, not wikipedia. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ick. Delete. Speedy. Crafty (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he is a character in "unspecified Star Wars fan fiction", how is anyone supposed to know what stories to find him in? And it would seem to be very hard for a character who appears only in fan fiction to achieve notability anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete and close this; AfD's busy enough without being cluttered by cases this obvious.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete per WP:MADEUP. • Anakin ^(talk) 16:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS, i.e. as it gets no hits on Google News and Google Books. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @087 · 01:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Prime[edit]

Appears to be nothing more than a website for erotic art scheduled for next year. No sources at all, except http://www.eden-prime.com/, which just says "coming soon". -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @235 · 04:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Maybe WP:CRYSTAL too. Crafty (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been watching this page since it was created as a nearly blank page on the 14th. Since then, no meaningful content at all has been added. The only sources I've seen are the page itself (eden-prime.com) and a facebook page - neither reliable sources. The only content that has ever been there is what is there now - a mention of the site's planned debut in 2010, and the infobox with little info (used to have a link which I removed when it was the only content on the page). The authors have yet to respond to any messages left for them concerning their plans to expand the article. As such, this looks like WP:CRYSTAL at best, and WP:SPAM at worst. There is also no claim made at all to notability. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. The article is almost free of content. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Tantaros[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Andrea Tantaros

Article was deleted back in December 2008. No reliable secondary sources are provided to suggest she is notable. Entire article is referenced by her website and her birthdate and full name is not even mentioned in her site. Fails WP:BLP1E Showtime2009 (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry I made an error. I thought it was an AfD before. It was a speedy delete candidate back in December 2008. Showtime2009 (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AfD template doesn't link properly to this discussion.
Comment Is this the same Andrea Tantaros who was a spokesperson for Jeanine Pirro in 2005 and William Weld in 2006? When you combine the substantial coverage she received in those roles with her prominence as an analyst or pundit or whatever she is I think she clearly passes the notability guidelines. There are lots of sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Regardless just about every source I could find is an article she wrote, transcript from tv appearance or some quotes she made as press secretary. I could not find anything that simply discusses her. Again I have no clue if that is even her real birthdate/full name. Showtime2009 (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concede your point. But at some point I think when someone has enough high profile roles in campaigns, enough television interview appearances, and enough articles, they become notable. I think it's enough. But I'm willing to wait and see what others think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She may have had important roles, but I do not see a significant amount of coverage from third-party sources. John Asfukzenski (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @181 · 03:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable The Red Peacock (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No strong consensus has come through over the three weak run of this AFD Nja²⁴⁷ 08:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Akram Shammaa[edit]

with all respect:

I havn,t heard about this prince in all syrian history books.
unrelated resources,mostly linked to zengid dnsty not the person or the crusaid wars.some resources has nothing about the article.
wrong interwiki --Chaos (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article needs a serious clean-up but his political career appears to be notable and there are many sources to back this up. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You may also want to look at [[[Mohammad Shammaa Al Zengi III]]] - it has fewer sources but he is a prince, and if he meets notability (which I'm not entirely sure about) then Akram Shammaa definitely does. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all do respect Prince Akram belongs to the modern syrian history, meaning it is normal that you will not find any indication for him, however if you go back to Khair Al-Din al Assadi's Encyclopedia or Al Hakim book and you will find the indication of the family and his involvement in politics. With all do respect to your opinion, I don't think our discussion should be whether he belongs to the Zengid Royal family or not, because we are trying to unfold the obsecured modern history of Syria, if you want to understand what I mean, please try to mention any other living Monarcy or Dynasty in Syria, didn't syria have any...? we know very well that it had and they exist until now, we are trying to get all the resources to reveal not only this dynasty but also other ones, who are not only dynasties but people who played a role in the syrian history. Please if you have any references feel free to post for discussion.
- The references that don't have links are books that are not listed online.
- The Encyclopedia reference has been linked to a page about the Author, It is unfortunate that I couldn't find such a renowned historian on Wiki, so I linked it to a page that speaks about him and his work, his Encyclopedia itself is not online
- Reference 1 mentions the family druing late 19th century until mid 20th century
- References 6, 7 and 8 clearly mention the political career of the prince
- The other links are for the references about the Zengid Dynasty --Andibernard (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question I would appreciate some comments by those who can read the newspaper material. In the absence of any actual evidence of descent, the historical material may have to be eliminated and the title changed. DGG (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with all respect for the person that this article talks about, and with all respect to the author, but I had to say that I havn't heard this name in spite I am syrian and I think I know enough about the syrian history. what is mentioned here is not enough to be considered as significant in formulating the syrian history or even small opposite movement in the modern syrian history. the only significant event or contribution mentioned in the article is leadership in a protest against Adib shishakli. this information I couldnt find it in special histrical books... the article mentions few local encyclopedias about alleppo personalities but even if this truth was correct, I couldnt consider it significant enough to make this biography notable for wikipedia while there is no other resources on the web confirm that. the second problematic point is the title: Prince. the author depends on some claims that this person is the head of Aleppo family which comes from Zengide dynasty. I dont know if that is true or not, but even so zenide dynasty is one of many dynasty ruled syria about 1100 during the crusade wars.... Nourdin zengi for example is considered real hero beside Sallah eldein in the islamic history. but still all of those were ruling under formal declaration of the Abbaside caliphate in Baghdad. and in spite that the real authority was for them Zengids and Ayubies but we cannot consider them as ruling family even the method of selecting the next ruler wasn't exactly clear. so I donno if we can use the title Prince or even if it is logical to link modern family with such ancient dynasty. I doubt that such a link after almost 1000 years could be confirmed. the resources in the article are mostly talking abut the Zengids and thier rules in restoring palastine. even the interwiki is refers to the Zengids articles in other wikipedias. --Chaos (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @180 · 03:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the History department at any university library and look under the section of Middle Eastern studies you will find the 2 books that I have provided (ref 6 and ref 8), and that's where I got those citations from. Now whether you personally consider this significant or not I don't believe is objective, we provide a verifiable information and leave the judgment for the reader
Now considering the resources and the references, not only in academia but also in Wikipedia we may add references that are books which are not available online. Please refer to Wikipedia citation policies and reliable sources articles for verification, and again whether you consider the reference correct or not, I don't believe we are here to criticize or disqualify scholars work based on our own convictions.
Now you mentioned you are Syrian (Chaos), and I do respect you and every one else whether Syrian or not, but considering the Syrian history, please pay attention for not providing inaccurate historical information. The Zengid and later the Ayybid dynasties did not rule under the Abbasid, in fact by that time the Abbasid had already lost power and territory for the Seljuk among others and each dynasty had their own currency, and the name of the Abbasid Caliph was no longer mentioned in "Khutba", in fact Aq Sunqur al-Hajib who was the father of the first Zengid prince Imad ad-Din Atabeg Zengi was the governor of Aleppo under the Seljuk King Malik Shah and had nothing to do with the Abbasid. In case you want to read more please refer to the writings of the scholar Ian Fraizer, and if you don't find him online please look on Wikipedia for the Abbasid; not to mention that the Ayyubid dynasty lasted more than a century longer than the Abbasid. Please any controversies concerning the dynasties or the way they chose their next rulers again has nothing to do with our discussion and whether you consider them legitimate or not is subjective and is disregarding historical facts.
Now whether we can relate the subject or not to the dynasty and call him prince, as I have mentioned earlier the 6th and the 8th citations have clearly referred to the subject as Prince while the 1st citation referred to the Shammaa family as the descendents of the Zengid dynasty and referred to Mohammad Shammaa Zengi as the Prince during the time the Encyclopaedia was written. Now as a postgraduate student in History I can't pretend to know how they can link between generations, but for more information please refer to the work of the Sociocultural Anthropologist Dr.David Kertzer. As I am familiar with some of his work concerning ancestry linking even for longer than 1000 years. Again the legitimacy of their work is not our concern here.

I do admit the article needs cleaning and some more work and due to time constrains I am not able to give Wikipedia full attention, any further assistant is appreciated, but I would appreciate objectiveness when criticizing the article or the citations.

--Andibernard (talk) 1:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

well regarding the title .. I will discuss it later .. but now regarding the political work : you have mentioned ( he has pivotal role in Hafiz Asad's coup) .... well logically how could a civil citizin who is exciled to neighbor country to play role in military coup. then you continue in descriping the asad's coup and its results .. couldnt you describe in detail this pivotal role if it really exists. the website that you have used is either not working or as I remeber has irrevelant informations.--Chaos (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the title: I would say sure I was wrong .. Zengid has ruled within the Seljuk Empire and the the Ayybids... actually this period is so complicated and I could make some mistakes .. but the idea was not to deal with the islamic history as the european history. in previous discussion you tried to call Zengid dynasty as Royal family which is european western concept and could be misleading in our context here. for this reason there is no solid base to consider every meber who could have lik to Zengids as Prince.. I could provide you names of many Families who could claim lineage linked to Abbasids who were really official royal dynasty if we can consider that acceptable concept. so should we consider them princes now??

now as we cannot consider the title is official title, then we need confirmed political role or contribution in public life. I was searching for such a role in the article and i couldnt find any specific significant roles except:

he led a protest against Adib al-Shishakli (I know alot of names who particapated previously in prtests in syrian history).
second : he has pivotal role in the military coup of hafez el asad ... which I found unlogical and not sourced .. actually you urself has descriped in detail the military coup and its result without mentioning any detail about the person's contribution.

unfortuantely it is impossible for me now to get access to the books you mentioned but these books seem like local encyclopedias about aleppo personalities. and for sure such a person who could belong to Aleppo high class would be mentioned in such books. but that not enough for me to consider that notable for wikipedia. I am not sure about the date of thier release .. if they are already in public domain ... you could scan these books and i will help u uploading them to arabic wikisource. I encourage ppl to do that in Arabic wikipedia. to be continued --Chaos (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear (Chaos) I think you are totally missing the main point. You can't just reject a reference because you don't like it personally or disagree with its content. The references I provided are in accordance with the policy of sources verifiability and reliability of Wikipedia for biographies. Please check Wikipedia: Sources.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true" Please read the whole policy article carefully. Whether you disagree with the references or you don't find it logical is totally subjective and unprofessional. I haven't written the books I only cited what they have mentioned, I find it weird that you are referring to those books as "local" repetitively, I have never been to Syria in my life and yet I found those books on the shelves of my university library. The matter of fact that you disagree or try to delegitimize those references and the work of other scholars doesn't make sense. Again the same issue with the title, I did not call the subject prince on my own, as previously mentioned 3 references referred to him as prince and one reference referred to his family as descendents of the Zengid dynasty (refer to my earlier comments). The Biography and political career references are in accordance with Wikipedia policy and are from renowned authors by renowned publishers, and are more reliable than online referencing, again please read carefully Wikipedia policy before criticizing or disagreeing with the content. --Andibernard (talk) 1:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Andi ... I think you too miss the point I am talking about. I began by saying if there is a title like Prince then it is not official and depend on relatives traces back to thousand of years, if we can confirm it. so I am saying concepts like royal family souldn't be applied in this case. secondly : regardless of the title... it is enough if the man has significant notable political or social contribution. but what I was discussing that even your resources couldn't mention notable work for this person. I am sorry .. but usually we are very strict inarabic wikipedia regarding biographies of living people. if a person doesn't hasn't really an significant impact o the public life or the historical politics in his country ... we couldn't consider his biography notable and eligible for wikipedia. not everything published is good and you can find alot of pblishied things which is stupid and unlogical. I think I explained my viewpoint so well so I won't comment here again --Chaos (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alot of commentary over a two week period with no strong consensus emerging. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confabulation (neural networks)[edit]

No independent sources to affirm notability per WP:GNG, and I can't seem to find any; all seems to be primary sources Chzz ► 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

— LongJohnPlatinum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Be-A-Bhodi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Aravind.g1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Rbsmth42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Port Tiger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I see secondary sources. Doesn't Scientific American, various reputable book authors, and Pullitzer Prize winning newspapers count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Periksson28 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources that are independent of the subject need to provide significant coverage. Simply having secondary sources isn't enough. It's the significance given to this subject in those sources that is being questioned, I assume. Sancho 07:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : The term comes up on citeseer, which is a good pace to look for academic computer topics, http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cis?q=confabulation&cs=1 , but what got me was ref to thalamic-corital loop ( and lack of caffeine). There was another up for deletion on EM theories of consciousness as it seemed to be a collection of fringe theories but that seems to be the "state of the art" in that area. I would suggest a merge or a link or list or catagory on "theories of consciousness" if that is what this is about. EM theories are more interesting and offer some hope for people who don't want to be thought of as neural networks (brain-independent mind of course brings in people who learned science from watching Ghost Busters but so does credible cold fusion work). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see all Wikipedia criteria being met here. Before, this was a paltry, one-sided article. Then others balanced it, with credible peer-reviewed references (i.e., the prestigious journal, Neural Networks, two very reputable science reporters with Ph.D.s in biology, Dr. Tina Hesman and Dr. Robert Holmes, plausible and successful authors in both robotics and legal implications of technology, Levy and Plotkin, not to mention respected NASA engineers and scientists. No, plenty of significance has been given here by secondary sources and none of these sources are ghostbusters franchisees. The fact of the matter is that millions around the world have been using products and services produced by confabulating neural networks, while the military throws millions into a new generation of battlefield robotics guided by these same principles. I sincerely recommend that this article be retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Periksson28 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thaler usurping the majority of the article for himself is in no way "balancing" it. I don't think you're approaching this subject from a neutral standpoint. Your comments make you out to be a fanboy, or perhaps Thaler himself (which, given what has happened on the article already, wouldn't be terribly surprising). Whatever the case, lets leave the decision about the notability of the article and the sources, be they from Thaler himself or merely from someone pretending to be him, to people with more comment history on Wikipedia, shall we? LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia featured an article claiming John Glenn to be the first man to orbit the earth, then anyone correcting that assertion would be considered usurping that piece, according to Mr. Long John. Naturally anyone responding to such a gross error, would be fans of Yuri Gagarin. In the case of this article, there have been several contributors.

Just check out the validity of the references. In many cases, they are the same as those referenced by the RHN fan who originally contributed and fibbed via omission. Whoever is adding to this stub (and I emphasize stub) is doing so at the invitation of Wikipedia, not necessarily because they are fans of one camp or another. Further, such claims are solidly backed by non-trivial sources, in many cases those used by RHN himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Periksson28 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man arguments and attacks on my character are not germane to the issue of the notability of the article and its sources. As asked earlier, are those sources you keep mentioning covering the subject significantly? That is a question best left to those with more Wikipedia experience than ourselves, and thus more credibility. LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently read the book by Plotkin, The Genie in the Machine: How Computer-Automated Inventing is Revolutionizing Law and Business published by Stanford University Press. The book provides real-world examples of the products confabulation theory has been used to create -- everything from toothbrushes to creative robots. Also the paper by Patrick published in IEEE summarizes the efforts of NASA’s marshall space flight center harnessing such technologies to autonomous space vehicle docking to future missions. In another paper by Mayer again published in IEEE, uses this technique to design an autonomous mobile robot to adapt to changing environments.

All these sources sound like secondary to me and also credible. I think this article is balanced and should be retained. (User talk:Rbsmth42 —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The issue is not whether the article is "balanced" but if it, and its references, meet the notability requirements. LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I’m glad we’ve narrowed the debate to one of notability.

Please observe that consistent with Wikipedia Notability Guidelines,

(1) Reliable sources (i.e., Stanford University Press, Springer, Scientific American, Elsevier, IEEE, NASA, etc.) have provided coverage of the subject. In each case, the context has not been that of confabulation in neural nets, but legal repercussions of autonomous discovery, brain death, materials discovery, and robotic control. --- check

(2) No empirical research is needed to extract the content. In each case, the research has been thoroughly laid out, especially when presented by science reporters aiming to explain the concept to the public (i.e., Hesman & Holmes). --- check

(3) Multiple secondary sources have been included, including scientists (Yam, Hesman, Holmes, engineers (Patrick), and lawyers (Plotkin). Each of these groups were required to perform a rigorous due diligence to determine authenticity of the subject science and technology. --- check

(4) All of the above sources solicited Thaler (not the other way around). I can’t imagine any of these authors writing articles that support an entrepreneurial business. --- check [User talk: aravind.g1001] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravind.g1001 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you know who solicited who definitively without being either one of the sources or Thaler himself? Further, how could you know what sort of due diligence each group was required to do without being Thaler or one of the sources? Given that you, Periksson28, and Rbsmith42 are all new users posting on the same obscure topic in neural networking, with the same lack of appreciation for wiki editing and commenting standards, and the same opinion/confusion over what the discussion on this page is about, I am wondering if you are not all sock puppets. LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our loyalties are not germane to the discussion. We represent the truth and the current article meets all Wikipedia standards. It seems that only one person, Mr. Long John, is intent upon the destruction of this article because others had the gumption to point out that the subject of confabulation in neural nets has already been addressed in peer-reviewed papers, credible press, and US and international patents. The topic is not obscure, because there are many commercial, government, and military customers of this technological capability who have effectively taken part in the due diligence process.

When pinned down, Mr. Long John dogmatically denies the relevance of his loyalties. The truth is that we don't have any idea whose payroll he is on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Periksson28 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued assertions that the article and its sources meet the notability requirements do not constitute a demonstration of your claims, and neither do they constitute a demonstration of your credibility on the topic of notability to make such a claim. Your continued conspiracy theory assertions about my "loyalties" or about "who's payroll I'm on" are not germane to the discussion of notability. LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then please provide substantive proof, and not dogmatic assertions, that article and references are not notable. Evidently, the article met Wikipedia notability requirements when presnted by an obvious RHN loyalist who conveniently omitted a very significant literature trail. Subsequent additions were solidly backed by verifiable references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Periksson28 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no assertions about the notability or lack thereof of this article and its references, and I shall refrain from making any because I am a new user/editor to Wikipedia and do not have the experience necessary to make an accurate judge of notability. I shall repeat myself yet again - let's leave the decision about the notability of the article and the sources to people with more comment history on Wikipedia, shall we? Additionally, your assertions about the article's previous status are untrue - if it does not meet the notability requirements now, then it most certainly did not meet them previously, as it was little more than a stub. More than likely, since this is such an obscure topic, it was simply overlooked by the admins for a long time. Your continued conspiracy claims about the "loyalties" of previous contributors are not germane to the discussion. LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're the inexperienced one who pulled the train's emergency brake. Let's hear your reasons for lack of notability.

BTW, creative/cogent confabulation is a front and center topic judging from the press it has received over the last 15 years. All you need to do is look at the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Periksson28 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remind you that it was not I that put the article up for deletion, but the administrator Chzz. Neither I, nor yourself, have any sufficient editing experience (as evidenced by our respective contribution histories) so as to give an authoritative opinion on the topic of notability as used by the Wikipedia standards. LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. First you raised the issues with the article. Subsequently Chzz nominated it for deletion. As a result, significant secondary sources have been added. The article has been toned down so as not to sound like a press release for anyone. Now you've introduced the next hurdle, notability. What is the next barrier? Please, again, what are your issues with notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Periksson28 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason that the article was nominated for deletion in the first place was notability - it wasn't an issue I raised. The article in its current state (with references and from a decidedly more NPOV) might meet the requirements, but again, that's something that people with more experience should decide. LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Be-A-Bhodi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strong Keep: It is clear that the sources provided are notable and of a respectable, authoritative and peer-reviewed nature. The article should be allowed to remain. Anyone who takes the time to read the topic and review the sources can clearly see this is not a vanity site; rather, the article meets all the necessary notability requirements by providing multiple, substantial credible sources that clearly establish precedence for the information being provided, and, provide readers a set of scientifically credible resources from which to launch (or continue) their own investigation of this topic. --Be-A-Bhodi (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the notability of the sources, I would still prefer that someone with more editing experience (and thus, more credibility) chime in as to whether or not the sources do indeed meet the requirements. On a different note, am I the only one who finds it curious how many new users this topic is attracting in such a short period of time? LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sources used in an article as references are not required to be notable, they only have to be reliable. It really isn't all that surprising that the AfD has attracted more attention to the article because AfDs tend to bring editors out of the woodwork. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the discussion and work that has gone into this article since the AfD nomination, I see no reason for deletion. The subject of the article is clearly notable, and I believe the original concerns that the article was mainly sourced to one particular body of work have largely been addressed. Given the discussion here and on the article's talk page I suspect the editors who have been working on the article will continue to improve it as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @180 · 03:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is still rather unclear, but it seems to be a reasonably noable idea. I'm not sure, though, that this use of the word differs so strongly from the standard meaning of confabulation that it might not be merged there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at my review of the listed references. I found no proof of the subject's notability on the Web. — Rankiri (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N, falls under WP:POVFORK, possibly WP:PROMOTION. Confabulation is a valid psychological concept but I see no evidence that the term is discussed in this particular manner by anyone but Stephen Thaler. The article's editing history—as well as this AfD discussion—raise major WP:COI, WP:SPA or WP:CANVASS concerns. Exclusive Google searches like [47], [48] or [49] show no relevant results. None of the listed references are valid or indicative of notability: the topic has to receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject in order to satisfy the inclusion criteria for standalone articles.

Both Computers Compose Personalized Music and "The Machine That Invents" are not about confabulation but about Stephen Thaler, his views and creations. "Computers Compose Personalized Music" is fully available online — the term confabulation is not even mentioned.

Robots unlimited, by David N. L. Levy: no results found in this book for Confabulation

The Genie in the Machine, by Robert Plotkin: no results found in this book for Confabulation

"Demonstration of Self-Training Autonomous Neural Networks in Space Vehicle Docking Simulations" is co-written with Stephen Thaler[50]. Even then, from what I can see, the term is enclosed in quotation marks and its mention in the article is trivial: “confabulations” of the information to arrive at new possibilities for solutions.[51]

"A Modular Neurocontroller for Creative Mobile Autonomous Robots Learning by Temporal Difference, Systems, Man, and Cybernetics" does not use the term confabulation at all [52]. — Rankiri (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with Raniki. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Sancho 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Port Tiger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *Keep. I have to admit that my editing experience is limited, and I do know both cognitive scientists this article references (does that disqualify me?). i also have a firm grasp of the term "confabulation" in contexts of both high level and computational psychology. In the latter sense the terms confabulation-false memory-degraded memory-novel pattern-constraint violation-strange attractors-etc are all used interchangeably in the artificial neural network sense. both sources are trying to point out that degraded memories in the brain are at the heart of cognition and the literature seems to be steering toward "confabulation". After my perusal of the reference, I do agree with Rankiri that the second article by Hesman about music generation should be stricken. The other citations make sense, ultimately mentioning one or more of these equivalent terms. There are some important references missing here. Port Tiger (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC) — Port Tiger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Mentions are not "significant coverage". There needs to be significant coverage in secondary sources that are independent of the subject (in this case, independent of the subject should be taken to mean not written by the originator(s) of the idea). Sancho 21:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sorry for the poor word choice. For two consecutive days, the entire front page of a Pullitzer newspaper significantly covered this notion of "faulty memory" generation (i.e., confabulation) to generate name brand products and control battlefield robots. Thats significant, considering it was written by a very reputable Ph.D. biologist and science reporter, Tina Hesman. Cliffover, who I've just added to the references, is a prodigious writer and Ph.D. physicist, who hits the mark, discussing the noise-induced generation of "both memories and unusual juxtapoistions of those memories unprecedented in the network's experience." (i.e., confabulation). Upon a thorough read of the remaining references you will find that the identification is made between confabulation and false memory generation. After all, Wikipedia would want the terms "land beaver" and "groundhog" to be unified and searchable under one name. In all these cases, the resulting literature was significant and not written by the originators of the idea. Maybe a move would work, but as a newcomer I can't imagine any of these sources wanting to be called "insignificant" even in Wiki-parlance.Port Tiger (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, none of the mentioned sources satisfy WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. If the term is not even mentioned, it's not really addressed directly in detail, is it? — Rankiri (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree again with Rankiri. The problem is that you have to say "ie. confabulation" in your justification, because the articles don't even mention the term. It would be like me inventing a term bogification to mean the death of a celebrity, then turning to all the coverage of celebrity deaths to say that they're giving my term bogification significant coverage. Sancho 05:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with Rankiri and Sancho. "Bogification" is not an appropriate analogy. The debate is not about something fairly common like a celebrity death, but a newly observed phenomenon in neural networks that has earned quite a bit of fame in both the press and books published by outside authors. Sure, there have been a lot of red herrings tossed out by recent writers on the subject as they change terminology to throw off the public. This article serves to undo that mischief. Furthermore, we are not talking about just a term, we are talking about a concept that goes by several different names as delineated in the article's body. Therefore, a word search alone doesn't prove much. As noted above, "ground hog" and "land beaver" should land a Wikipedia user at the same article, and citations to the ground hog artcle should not be abandoned because Ctrl F was unsuccessful in finding the term "gound hog" in that reference. Periksson28 (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with Rankiri. The Hesman article alone addresses the topic significantly and in detail under the equivalent concept of degraded memories, as she clearly states in the beginning of the article. Nevertheless, LongJohnPlatinum continues to repeatedly destroy that citation. I am speaking as someone having a lifetime of experience in the field of neural networks. My research into the topic shows equivalency of the terms in question (and that was not a key word search).Periksson28 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NEO: A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing. As for the groundhog analogy, please see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions — Rankiri (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Neural Networks archive. Volume 18 , Issue 2 (March 2005). Q.E.D. Periksson28 (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Hesman does not just mention it briefly. She posits the phenomenon as the basis of a new brand of artificial intelligence, makes contact with how this mechanism works in the brain, and shows how it can be appplied to do many things.Periksson28 (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found nothing germane to the discussion in arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Periksson28 (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 71.246.47.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *---Keep---i agree with port tiger! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.47.3 (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC) — 71.246.47.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is strongly on the side of keeping. Aside from that, a batch nomination was inappropriate here. If anything, these articles should be judged individually. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Jedi Purge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Also nominated:

These are all articles about plot elements and events from the Star Wars series. Wikipedia is not Wookieepedia; more specifically WP:NOT#PLOT prohibits articles for plot only descriptions of works of fiction. In addition, WP:WAF establishes that articles about topics in fictional universes must be independently notable, as established by reliable, independent sources. WP:INUNIVERSE outlines some of the problems keeping articles solely devoted to plot details. NB: Great Jedi Purge has been nominated before, but community standards have changed. The main rationale of keep voters was that it was relevant to multiple works within the fictional series, not that it was notable outside the fictional series. Savidan 01:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even this list, clustered by franchise, is a bit complicated. I recommend a redirect for the planets to the List of..., unless someone can point to any of them that contain a large enough chunk of production and real-world info. to make a merge of that content unwieldy; anything beginning with "Jedi" can redirect to Jedi; the YZ invasion redirect to New Jedi Order. The others -- Galactic Civil War and Great Jedi Purge -- I'm iffy on. They are significant plot elements covered in numerous Star Wars works; a redirect simply to Star Wars is plausible. Regardless -- I appreciate Savidan's boldness in trying to move out a collection of cruft, but I fear even this abbreviated list of items (compared to ~40-item AfD earlier) might also lead to some split decisions; I predict, at least, that the consensus will be that none of these articles is in even remotely good shape; beyond that, no bets. --EEMIV (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to me that most of these articles are worthy of a Wikipedia entry, but that practically all of them need to be rewritten from an in-universe style into a non-fictional perspective with legitimate, verifiable sources. They need serious work from that perspective, yes, but as a long time Star Wars fan I can tell you that there are a lot of sources out there that talk about these topics from a non-fictional standpoint. Simply deleting them is not the way to go here, and if they are kept, I would be willing to work on them to bring them up to Wikipedia standards... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if the articles themselves have problems to be fixed, fictional locations and events are viable subjects for Wikipedia articles. See, e.g., Lake Wobegon, Hogwarts, Castle Grayskull, The West Wing presidential election, 2006, Crisis_on_Infinite_Earths, etc. (I reject WP:OTHERSTUFF as fundamentally detrimental to Wikipedia, but other editors should consider this before accepting my reasoning.) I support User:EEMIV's suggestion that most of the planets redirect to Important planets in the Star Wars universe or somesuch, but that is beyond the scope of AFD. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Jedi Purge to the ROTS article, Yuuzhan Vong invasion to the NJO article, the Jedi articles to Jedi, Galactic Civil War, tentatively, to Star Wars#Prequel trilogy, and the planets either to the films they appeared in (V, V, II, II, IV, none) or a list of planets. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Great Jedi Purge is a large topic all on its own, therefor simply ridirecting it to Star Wars would not be very plausible at all. Nor would deleting it be plausible. This may not be Wookieepedia, but this is still a place where people can share relevent information freely, and this information is obviously relevent to someone.

Weak keep for Dagobah and Jedi Council; delete the remainder. Dagobah has the potential for some real-world context. (I'm not saying that anything mentioned in a Weird Al song is notable, but it's a cultural reference nonetheless.) Likewise, Jedi Council is a likely search topic. It may need merged into another article (Jedi?), but it's a reasonable search term. The rest are too in-universe. —C.Fred (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment If some of these articles can be merged with others then, by all means, do it. The topics may not be notable on their own, but I don't think we should push the notability requirement to a point where splitting of articles for readability becomes impossible. Yes, I think most of this stuff needs cleaning up but I don't think blanket AfDs are going to nail it. Addition: I withdrew my original "keep" recommendation after reading some of the articles. There as some, like the Jedi purge, that should probably survive. The most sensible way would be to first remove all the in-universe and condense the plot descriptions to a few sentences. The, see if the topic still warrants an article (in most cases, probably not). However this is never going to happen, so zapping some of those may be a good idea after all. Averell (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Every single one of these would need to be a redirect of some sort even if the content was removed, therefore deletion is patently inappropriate. Powers ^T 14:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly encourage splitting this out to avoid a trainwreck, but here goes anyway... Smerge Great Jedi Purge with the plot section of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Merge Yuuzhan Vong invasion to The New Jedi Order as the series is about the invasion, and while some cleanup is needed this isn't a horrible summary of the overall plot. Keep Galactic Civil War for now - this is the primary setting of the original films and many books, it should be salvageable in some form. I'd at least prefer a separate AfD for it, it's survived before. Merge elements of Jedi Academy with Yavin and Jedi Temple with Coruscant, the planets they're based on. Keep all planets except Mon Calamari (planet) as notable and important planets from the films, and useful depositories of articles about locations on such planets (as I did above). I'm too busy in real life to seriously look around right now, but there's probably real-world set location/design information out there that could be added to these as well. Redirect Mon Calamari to List of Star Wars planets (M–N), its claim to notability is much more limited than the other planets listed. Finally, merge Jedi Council into Jedi, it's basically a subtopic of Jedi and can be incorporated into the structure section. BryanG (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the planets; except for Mon Cal they have all received significant screen time in the major films and can thus be expanded with lots of out of universe information. Mon Calamari has also been featured in multiple works. Keep Yuuzhan Vong invasion and Galactic Civil War. These are both major story arcs that have been featured in many, many works, especially the GCW. The 4 "Jedi" articles remaining can probably be Merged and redirected to Jedi. Firestorm ^Talk 15:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as elements of a very notable fictional universe. No objection to cleanup or properly-discussed mergers to trim things down, but these topics have coverage in reliable secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all If you aren't a well read fan of the series, you shouldn't be mass nominating all of these things for deletion. I agree that these are notable elements of a very notable fictional universe. Dream Focus 23:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. All are notable. No question about it. Possibly a snow close soon. Malinaccier (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge locations to the list of locations ; Merge the Jedi articles to the Jedi article ; Merge the wars to a Timeline of wars in Star Wars article or somesuch ; 76.66.192.91 (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This page should be kept, but it should be improved some. Parker1297 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider User:BryanG's recommendations above. — AjaxSmack 03:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagpole Magazine[edit]

According to its website, this is free magazine in "Athens[, GA, available] at over 325 locations: shops, restaurants, bars, clubs, street corners and the University of Georgia campus." It appears to be one of those free quasi-magazine publications you see discarded in trash cans outside tourist bureaus, banks, and dentists' offices. I see no claim to notability. The article asserts none, and a google search is muddied with advertising and self-referential material. As to policy, WP:NME is not yet canonical, and even if it was it's dubious whether Flagpole is notable by those criteria. That leaves the general guideline and possibly WP:ORG, and it's far from clear to me that this newsletter has been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. good wikiquette requires notification of the article's creator and significant contributors. I haven't done so, because there is no one to notify. The article was created in 2005 by an IP account, and no one has made more than trivial edits since user:Tobogganoggin in 2006. Even if Tobogganoggin was likely to still care, his contribution history shows no activity since December 1 of last year, so notification would fall on deaf ears.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I typically skew deletionist, but 5 seconds on Google is plenty to come up with mention in independent, reliable sources. You might want to use Google News if you find yourself getting bogged down in "advertising and self-referential material". Small sampling:
1. Flagpole is a "defender of Athens lifestyle" - a dedicated piece on the magazine from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: [53]
2. The New York Times identifies Flagpole as a "trusty guide" to goings-on in Athens: [54]
3. The founding of Flagpole (in 1987) is identified as an important event in the history of the Athens music scene: [55]
4. Flagpole holds an annual music awards ceremony recognizing the best in local music: article from The Albany Herald
5. Local music awards ceremony mentioned in the Athens Banner-Herald: [56]
6. Flagpole celebrates 20 years of publication, noted in a University of Georgia student paper: [57]
7. Flagpole publishes a useful guide to AthFest, a major local music festival - article from Atlanta Journal-Constitution ([58])
8. The magazine is a member of the Athens Press Club ([59])
All of this points to a notable local free paper, with occasional notice on a national level (e.g. the New York Times). MastCell ^Talk 07:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With one exception, those sources are all trivial. They mention the publication in passing or tangentially, and that won't suffice for notability. Being "mention[ed] in independent, reliable sources" is not the criterion: "Significant coverage" (meaning multiple "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail") is. The article hasn't shown that, and neither do the sources you're pointing to.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that your interpretation of triviality is correct (it conflicts with that given in WP:NME), and setting aside the dedicated coverage from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Additionally, while WP:NME is not policy, it appears to be reasonably established as a guide in this area. Flagpole would appear to qualify ("...considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area") as an authoritative guide to local goings-on in Athens, per the sources I've listed above (particularly the direct identification as such by the New York Times). MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources with shallow coverage can be aggregated into notability - but multiple sources with only trivial, incidental mentions of the subject multiply exactly as you'd expect: any number multiplied by zero comes to zero. The sources you mention come to zero. There's a few passing references, but virtually nothing in terms of coverage of the article subject. As you note, NME isn't policy, but I already pointed that out and noted that even if it was, this article doesn't appear to satisfy it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've already said my piece, and I'll wait to see if anyone else stops by to venture an opinion. MastCell ^Talk 02:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Although this comes a lot closer to being notable than most local free magazines, I see most of the references above as trivial. The NYC Times one is interesting, but that alone won't get it past notability. Mentions in local media or college newspapers doesn't help much. I disagree with the premise that multiple trivial mentions can be combined to become notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By way of clarification, do you consider the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to be "local media"? MastCell ^Talk 05:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the AJC article, although behind a pay wall, is clearly a profile piece that covers Flagpole magazine as its primary subject. In combination with other shallow coverage, this is enough to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've read it, then? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the paywall summary which clearly indicates it is the main subject of the article. The fact that we cannot access it online does not negate its value as a source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the answer is no: you haven't read it. So we have no idea what the article says, just an assumption based on the first paragraph. Right? All we know about what's in that story is that there's almost nothing in that story: we know from the summary that it's 499 words in total, ergo any coverage of anything therein is necessarily shallow.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I did not read the article. 500 words isn't a mere mention. So despite the possiblity of sources to establish notability, you would rather delete the article? -- Whpq (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When notability is borderline at best, as here (five hundred words of "attention ... from local media ... is not an indication of notability," and may be more than trivial, but it is still shallow), yes, I would rather delete the article.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gas tax holiday[edit]

I nominated this article for deletion because of the lack of interest in making the article current and because of Wikipedia policy against news reports as articles (see WP:NOTNEWS). Thatoneguy89 (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Thatoneguy89 (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The stated ground is not a good ground for deletion; the subject seems notable enough and there is no deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is taken about the no effort policy, however I still think this article lacks notability. What this whole article amounts to is a campaign promise that never materialized. Keeping this article is equivalent to saying that any small piece of proposed legislation, despite never being officially debated by congress, is worthy of an encyclopedia article. This article is a news report, and as it says here: "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." What historical impact did this news item have? Thatoneguy89 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced and worthy of some note. Not very interesting but nevermind. • Anakin ^(talk) 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- As a concept its a notable one, worthy of encyclopedic entry. Could and should probably be re-written so that isntead of concentrating on how it was a part of Clinton and McCain's campaigns, it should concentrate on the concept of the gas tax holiday. That said, I agree with the first commenter, that just because it hasn't been worked on doesn't make it non-notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about what the article could be, not what it is. If you would like to rewrite it so that it talks about the theory of a gas tax holiday instead of incidental news then I would agree to keep it. However, if you or no one else will do this before the debate is over the article should be deleted and if someone wants to write a proper article in the future they can re-create it. Thatoneguy89 (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hugely notable idiotic policy. A salient issue of the last US pres election. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Thrush[edit]

Non notable, unsourced, not mentioned at Wellington Lions as a notable player. All other current players of team have some mention of notable achievements or athletic history. Delete. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It seems this player does exist and has held an important role at some point or another in his career. I quote this Dominion Post article, "Injuries to prop Neemia Tialata and lock Jeremy Thrush have soured the start of the Wellington Lions' buildup to Saturday's Air New Zealand Cup final." herecomes the important part, "The two key forwards both went down at the team's first training session of the week yesterday with Tialata's latest knee injury appearing to be the more serious of the two." In another article by TVNZ they say, "Lions' lock Jeremy Thrush - one of their best on the night - quickly scored a spectacular five point reply for the visitors after a perfectly timed chip and chase from fullback Cory Jane." Okay and in this article there is a heck of alot about him including pictures and game summaries. More sources include [60], [61], [62], [63]. I would add the reason why he wasn't on their website is because he was trades to a team called the hurricanes of which there are more sources, [64], [65], [66]. I said weak because I don't know much about Rugby, or their leagues. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that was added to the article, I'd support a keep. The article as it stands though is bleak. I also know nothing of Rugby so I don't want to add something that I'm clueless about. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally stub something out of this, maybe add an infobox etc. but as I know nothing about Rugby I can't do that in this situation. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @191 · 03:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not mentioned at Wellington Lions as a notable player? There you can read that he was in the squad for the 2008 Air New Zealand Cup. Unsourced is no reason for deletion, this is a discussion about notability. Played in the 2008 Air New Zealand Cup. Expanded the article, the sources for this you can find in the history. --Ilion2 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - has played in two successive finals of New Zealand's top professional domestic rugby competitions (i.e. one of the world's top competitions).[67] Would someone who has played at the superbowl or world series baseball be deleted? The current poor state of the article is not grounds for deletion. Nomionators are supposed to check for missing sources before proposing. dramatic (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is rather a tough call. No strong consensus has developed, but I wouldn't be able to justify relisting. The discussion is currently leaning towards keep/merge, and as "no consensus" defaults to keep, I think this is the appropriate way to close this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride[edit]

Contested prod. Pamphlet with unclear notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV disclosure: In contesting this prod, the creator implied that the reason I prodded this had everything to do with my Christian faith. Rest assured that it is not the case. What I see here is a lack of a notability assertion and a lack of reliable sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You ae biased dot com. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the personal attack which I am unwilling to attempt to answer, the sources you provided do attest the existence of this pamphlet, however they do not establish much more than that. Can you remedy the situation? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just watch me citing ;) --SofieElisBexter (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the possibility of perceived POV-pushing, I will refrain from any further comment in this AfD, even where warranted. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History of sexuality is a wiki topic, and the text of The Instructions is a resource (There are a number of sources that can be collected across a wide variety of times and cultures, including the following: 2.Religious and philosophical texts recommending, condemning or debating the topic) often citted - make a google book search. Besides the issue is lacking history of meddieval, renaissance christian world and later, and talks only about ancient times and then imediately sexual revolution. Noone would make a Sexual revolution on Ancient time sexual practises, this is very much clear. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references cited in the article do not address the notability of the topic which seems to be a hoax regarding a supposedly Victorian text. The article has style issues that could be addressed, such as wildly veering off topic without discernible direction or cause, but bottom line is notability has not been demonstrated through significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Please notify me on my user talk page if such coverage is found and clearly without doubt meets WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No hoax - copy rights of University of Washington shows it. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @193 · 03:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to have some discussion in some books; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Abductive (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other languages:

Russian: Инструкция для молодой невесты 1894
Bulgarian: Инструкции и съвети за млади булки
Croatian: Seksualni vodič za djevojke iz 1894

I believe there are more translations. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both this and Lie back and think of England to Sexual revolution. I agree that there's some coverage, but I also agree that it fails to meet WP:N. Per WP:PRESERVE we should retain some mention of the subject in Wikipedia, but there simply isn't enough sourceable material there for someone to be able to write a separate article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot merge articles like Lie back and the Intstructions with something serious. They may be of historical origin but they have a popular humouristic meaning, this is unserious! Besides Like back is a fraze while the Instructions are an explainatory text. Not to mention that the Lie back became popular long before the Revolution and the Instructions long after? What is this? DO you think before writing and voting? --SofieElisBexter (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't think, SofieElisBexter. And I certainly don't agree that "this is serious and that isn't" is a good reason for keeping a non-notable article as a separate entity.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you belive an article about Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan with google is more important? And plenty more in Wiki. I never heard this one being tranlsated or popular anywhere in the world. But if I look closer I will find many translations of the Instructions, so far I have 3, not looked up for other Slavic and non slvic languages. I don't really understand what exactly is the problem you have, men, with this article. Yes, it is important, but no, you dont want it in Wikipedia. Why? Because you dont like truth. And sertainly you prefer to use this text as a harrasment hoax (Krull case) using and abusing the less educatedness and stupidity of women. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do want this subject to be covered in Wikipedia, and I was fairly clear about that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I woudl appreciate that everyone voting first read the two articles, at least ;) --SofieElisBexter (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems to be more than adequately well referenced. The text seems to have been noticed enough to not only be an Internet meme, but was actually seriously discussed in a textbook in a discussion of attitudes towards human sexuality. These texts are too extensive to merge anywhere without either loss of information or giving them undue weight in any target article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : This sounds like another historical "obscure but notable" item. These come up on a number of subjects and I've been trying to refine a notion of "notable" that doesn't rule out obscure. An encyclopedia is not supposed to promote a topic but it has to be more than a collection of popular trivia (IMO). If the sources check and create enough observations about the work, it seems an entry would be useful to many readers. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : However, this article could benefit from skilled attention to grammar and style. Its first sentence needs improvement, "copy right" is correctly spelled as a compound word, "copyright," "exampling" should probably be "exemplifying," but the sentence containing it would still be awkward with correct grammar. That is an incomplete list of possible improvements. More attention to grammar, spelling, and style would be great. Newportm (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aside from the weak keep by mike, the other two intial keeps did not hold up to the scrutiny of the eight deletes Nja²⁴⁷ 08:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HExistentialism[edit]

Speedy tag removed by an IP. Non-notable video game. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. Game is noteable. Please allow time for corrects, and a better Wikipedia staff explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmaas (talk • contribs) 01:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All seems good now. Please remove delete notice. Thanks for your help brah! Go with christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmaas (talk • contribs) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that last comment a joke by Ericmaas? Vandalism? Brian Reading (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think he's toying with us. Seems like he's having trouble with the Mediawiki software. Obvious first-time user. This is actually a comment I moved to its proper position. Originally, it was at the top of this page, which made it appear, to someone looking at the log, that it had to do with Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride instead of HExistentialism. I just had some trouble making him understand that, and I'm not sure he understands even now. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think this process is being severely complicated by that as well. Oh well, whatever has to be done... Brian Reading (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This game is non-notable as far as I can tell. I can't find any reliable sources for coverage and verifiability. Brian Reading (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are notable reviews from notable sites:

http://the-gadgeteer.com/2009/07/03/hexistentialism-iphoneipod-touch-game-review/

http://www.appscout.com/2009/06/hexistentialism_offers_mind-st.php

http://www.randomn3ss.com/iphone-app-review-hexistentialism/

This is verifiable yes?

Sorry, but those aren't reliable sources. Brian Reading (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are they not reliable, they verify that the game exists, and they discuss the game. how is that not a good source? Please answer in a clear complete manner otherwise I am stuck spinning in cirlces.

Please read WP:RS, and it should be apparent. If for some reason, it's still not, we can get into that. Brian Reading (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets get into it. I am still not seeing your point.

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/randomn3ss.com+appscout.com+the-gadgeteer.com/

I'm not quite sure what that link is for, however I will retract my statement that NONE of those are reliable sources, as AppScout seems to be a part of Ziff Davis Media. The others appear to be self-published sources. Unfortunately, one mention in a reliable source still doesn't seem to warrant an article. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here. Brian Reading (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Article should remain on Wikipedia. I just started editing it, and added the review sources to the reference page when I noticed this discussion was going on. The person who put this article up for deletion did not allowed enough time for the community of proactive users to add to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani zee (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC) — Dani zee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you'll read the discussion going on here, you'll see that simply putting random review links in the article doesn't make it okay to keep. All sources used must be reliable. So far, I've only see one reliable source used, and it's just not enough to warrant an entire article. Brian Reading (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Simple google search shows the Gadgeteer Article being picked up by various other websites http://www.google.com/search?q=gadgeteer+hExistentialism&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=gCy&start=10&sa=N —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani zee (talk • contribs) 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these guys find the-gadgeteer relevant:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=link:www.the-gadgeteer.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmaas (talk • contribs) 02:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a non-self published review. This site has 9 contributors. http://www.geardiary.com/2009/06/10/quick-look-hexistentialism/#more-32632

There is no editorial oversight there. Your presented standards for reliability don't seem to match with Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Brian Reading (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @192 · 03:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable video game. No reliable sources. Crafty (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 08:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. Current article is unsalvageably biased anyway. • Anakin ^(talk) 16:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:SOAP. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit. Article should have reviews used as a references, not promotion. Remove the art and style bits, they are biased. Source the developments parts or do not use them. Article is salvageable, but needs work. Might want to fix that image as well. Also as to the previous comments about notable content most of those sites are relevant tech blogs. Gear Diary has an Editor, the app scout is ZD blog, and the-gadgeteer gets talked about on many tech blogs, like shinny shinny. Fix these issues read it a loud a few times, you will see what is up. I hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.157.46.97 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, please read WP:RS. The key is that being "talked about on many tech blogs" does not qualify for reliability. It's just not what the standards for Wikipedia are. Brian Reading (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is self-promotion. Dani zee is presumably Dani Zuniga, one of the developers, and Ericmaas is associated with the developers (see http://twitter.com/ericmaas/status/1886478495). 24.23.157.146 (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I "Dani Zee" am one of developers, which I have admitted to the admins. In fact I have been waiting for this article to organically be written. Once I saw it was, I edited (which I have stopped doing) for the the sake of providing accuracy and references. I will not edit the article anymore but I will make a case for this article to stay up on wikipedia. You can decide whether or not to take my statements into account when making the decision keep the article on wikipedia.

Twitter is not evidence of association. Ericmaas has is not an employee or contractor of Ayumusoft. My name (Dani) is not even spelled right on the tweet. Ericmaas is following hExistentialim but hExistentialim is not following Ericmaas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani zee (talk • contribs) 03:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and cleanup – As noted in the article and above, there looks like a couple of sources that are reliable (at least, from doing a quick spot check, two of them have editorial staffs that should provide some reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) and hence can establish some notability. While the tone of the article can improve to be more encyclopedic, I don't think it's that promotional at all to warrant deletion. That can easily be cleaned up to fix that. MuZemike 02:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having an editorial staff doesn't necessarily warrant reliability of sources. It's important to analyze the staff, and make the decision whether they are trustworthy and experienced enough to provide reliability in information. I don't believe that staff has the credentials to be treated as such. The only legitimate source in my opinion still seems to be AppScout. Brian Reading (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks pretty non-notable. No significant coverage in multiple WP:RS's. I don't like the COI aspect either. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - of the references provided, I'm dismissing them all as self-published sources except for App Scout. However, this remaining source is not exactly significant coverage. Perhaps enough to verify the game in a "list of iPhone games" article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This closure made from a somewhat procedural standpoint; batch nominations should be used sparingly, and in this case each article needs to be judged individually. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cylon War[edit]

Also nominated:

These are all articles about plot elements and events from the Battlestar Galactica series. Wikipedia is not the Battlestar Galactica wiki; more specifically WP:NOT#PLOT prohibits articles for plot only descriptions of works of fiction. In addition, WP:WAF establishes that articles about topics in fictional universes must be independently notable, as established by reliable, independent sources. WP:INUNIVERSE outlines some of the problems keeping articles solely devoted to plot details. Savidan 00:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with deleting all of these, but with some reservations for Cylon War -- but, really, that could probably just redirect to the main franchise article, which summarizes the essentials of the conflict well enough. Most of these can also just be redirected -- FTL (BSG) to the catch-all article on fictional FTL travel, e.g.--EEMIV (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what EEMIV said as he echoes my thoughts exactly. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @194 · 03:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge "Eastern Alliance", "Twelve Colonies", "Kobol" into the list of Battlestar locations article.
- Keep "Cylon War", and Merge "Destruction of the Twelve Colonies" into it ; as it is the central concept to the franchise.
- Redirect "Pyramid", "Quorum of Twelve", "Articles of Colonization" to the "Twelve Colonies" section (and possibly expand with a sentence or two about these concepts)
- Delete "FTL"
- 76.66.192.91 (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear on what content you think could be merged as the policies I have cited apply to both notability and writing guidelines. "central concept to the franchise" in no way indicates notability out-of-universe. Savidan 05:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why list them altogether like that? Do you think everyone is going to look at all of them at once? Break them up, for proper consideration. Cylon War is a notable event in the two television series, the comic book, and anywhere else it was featured at. That article is well done, plenty of valid content, which wouldn't fit anywhere else. The Destruction of the Twelve Colonies is also a nice long article, rich with valid content. As far as independent coverage, I believe any news source that reviews the series, will mention both of these things in them.

Keep Cylon War
Keep The Destruction of the Twelve Colonies

Dream Focus 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Twelve Colonies Having read through it, it is interesting, well written, and filled with plenty of content, that you could not merge on any other page without loosing much of it. Dream Focus 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Certain of these may be merger candidates, but these are notable fictional elements of a major sci fi franchise. Secondary, reliable sources, e.g. Google News is trivial to find. Nomination reflects a minority view of fictional notability. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, with the understanding that most of these could probably stand to be merged into a parent or episode article. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep with support for the idea proposed by BlueSquadronRaven. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so we can properly discuss what should me merged (quite likely most of them, but nominating them all together is not the way to a rational decision) And in any case the nomination gives no reason given why they should not be at least redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason. Even some of the people who like these articles least agree on that. Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia .DGG (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Quorum of Twelve", "Articles of Colonization" into the "Twelve Colonies" page
Keep "Eastern Alliance", "Twelve Colonies", "Kobol", "FTL"
Keep "Cylon War", and Merge "Destruction of the Twelve Colonies" into it
Redirect "Pyramid" to "Twelve Colonies"

Senix (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All as these unsourced articles contravene basic Wikipedia policies for article content, as they are comprised unverifiable original research that is all plot summary. There is no evidence to suggest that their subject matter is in any way notable, and arguements based on subjective judgement that these articles should be kept fail to address the issue that they don't contain any encyclopedic coverage at all. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all as frivolous and disruptive mass nomination. No none with any actual knowledge on fictional subjects would say to delete these articles, which means the only so-called basis for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In any event, because these notable subjects can be verified in reliable sources they constitute out of universe unoriginal research and even appear in published encylopedias. We may not be the Battlestar Wiki, but we are not Encyclopedia Britannica either and we cover articles that Britannica cover just as we include articles that appear in other encyclopedias as per our first pillar we are a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias. In any event, the above elements of fiction appear in a franchise that spans video games, books, three TV series (original, reimagined, and upcoming prequel series), multiple miniseries/TV films, etc. as seen at User:A_Nobody/Inclusion_guidelines#Table_of_notable_fictional_universes. Calling these unnotable either reflects extreme ignorance of the subject or outright dishonesty. To say it is unverifiable reflects not making any effort to look for sources, as the following book results demonstrates: [68], [69], [70], etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arguements along the lines of WP:GHITS are worthless. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not when they reveal that the subejcts under discussion have been covered multiple times in numerous published books thereby demonstrating the ignorance or dishonesty in any claims to the contrary. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above and not that Pyramid (sport) should be speedied per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball sport (Battlestar Galactica). Jack Merridew 06:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. Some of these may be better suited for merging/redirects, but none of these appear to have an in universe perspective; most of them have independent sourcing that satisfies the notability requirements; and most of them appear to avoid the plot-only citation, as well. In short, the reasons cited for deletion do not seem to apply; and the mass nomination makes it impossible to constructively reorganize where necessary. Justin Bacon (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for Butlerian Jihad and no consensus for War of Assassins with leave to speedy renominate the latter. The issue of what to merge into what can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butlerian Jihad[edit]

These are all articles about plot elements and events from the Dune series. Wikipedia is not the Dune Wiki; more specifically WP:NOT#PLOT prohibits articles for plot only descriptions of works of fiction. In addition, WP:WAF establishes that articles about topics in fictional universes must be independently notable, as established by reliable, independent sources. WP:INUNIVERSE outlines some of the problems keeping articles solely devoted to plot details. Savidan 00:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I agree with Savidan. This is not the Dune Wiki, and articles about elements of fictional works need to be supported by more than the works themselves. Reyk _YO! 07:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Butlerian Jihad to Dune: The Butlerian Jihad as likely search term; delete War of Assassins (or simply redirect to Dune universe). --EEMIV (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or Merge Dune has been repeatly cited as one of the most influence science fiction novels of the century. Deleting or removing information would be setting a dangerous precedence. Such genres such as Star Wars would also require heavy merging if the result was delete. It has been cited by multiple sources and has been covered in multiple works of fiction. Valoem ^talk 15:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Star Wars articles have gone, and continue to undergo, massive merging, redirection and deletion -- much to the improvement of the wikiproject and Wikipedia as a whole. The Dune wikiproject, if there is one, should follow suit, and save repetition of in-universe plot summary to specialized fan wikis. --EEMIV (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Notable fictional elements that have recevied coverage in secondary sources. Merging is a cleanup action, and AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, what secondary sources? War of Assassins has no sources at all, and Butlerian Jihad is supported only by the Dune novels and the official Dune encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 23:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - … and the four sources mentioned by Groomtech below, and page 102 of ISBN 9780387285986 … Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or perhaps merge, depending if criticism can be found, and it seems it can, at least for BJ. These are central plot elements in a major fiction. Content for articles like this is best supported by the primary source, in any case, and there is no agreement that NOT PLOT applies to the individual articles that make up the Wikipedia coverage of a fiction, just to the total overall coverage. As for the amount of detail, it seems appropriate for a general encyclopedia . One specializing in Dune would have much more--I hope it would, anyway. In any case, redirects are appropriate. DGG (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Butlerian Jihad to Dune universe#The Butlerian Jihad, an existing overview of the topic which I've just bolstered with content and references from here. Fellow Dune fans should know that I've also made sure that notable info in this article has been adequately covered as appropriate in the Dune Encyclopedia and Legends of Dune articles. Is it possible for the nominator to boldly redirect the article, or do we need to wait this out?— TAnthony^Talk 07:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect War of Assassins to List of Dune terminology#W, where the term is mentioned.— TAnthony^Talk 10:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as over coverage (and I know, I've read the first six or so books). These are not major plot elements, they are minor bits of verbiage by Frank Herbert that have been inflated by fans into, uh, Cruft!™ They have been abetted by Brian Herbert milking his father's work for his living. Jack Merridew 09:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you've read the books you should realize that the concept of the Jihad (no computers allowed) is what shapes just about every element of the Dune universe, making a redirect to the section I've suggested a more sensible move than a wholesale deletion. And your bias aside, the fact that someone wrote three additional books about it (inferior though they may be) also lends some notability.— TAnthony^Talk 10:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thing is, it is hardly mentioned in the original books. Ya, they've no computers, but the fans, including Herbert-the-younger, have mostly made-up what Frank might have meant. This is in-universe fans abhorring a vacuum. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

Herbert's death in 1986 left his vision of the actual events of the Butlerian Jihad unexplored and open to speculation.

”

I'm advocating a merge, but you seem to be suggesting that the content in the article is pushing fan analysis or assertions. As far as I can tell, it is succinctly explaining the concept by quoting from the series. The lack of computers in this fictional universe is what has shaped all factions and technology in the series, it may not need a lengthy article but it's worth more than a footnote.05:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep Butlerian Jihad. Google Scholar gives L DiTommaso - Science Fiction Studies, 1992; JL Grigsby - Science Fiction Studies, 1981; D Palumbo - Science Fiction Studies, 1998; Peter Lunenfeld; Afterimage, Vol. 23, 1996. Seems enough to establish notability of the concept. Groomtech (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Butlerian Jihad. Well-sourced, well-organized article, not in-universe treatment, dealing with important fictional concept in highly popular and influential series of novels. War of Assassins is in-universe and can be redirected. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge and redirect. I came to the article by accident from outside the Dune universe and found it clear and to the point. It is not cruft if the article is exactly what you were interested in; digging through a bigger Dune universe article for the few relevant points would be practically nothing but cruft. magetoo 10:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion to redirect should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Nguyen[edit]

Non notable poker player. Don't see much for reliable third party sources independent of the subject. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This guy's a pretty well known professional player. As the story already notes, he has won World Poker Tour titles and well-known million-dollar pots; he's one of a short list of people in the World Poker Tour millionaire's club and he's featured prominently in WPT DVDs. His article needs sources, but he's still articleworthy. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Hunter Kahn. Iowateen (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Poker Tour season 3 results#Bay 101 Shooting Star. He has one big win, which accounts for $1,025,000 of his $1,100,000 total lifetime tournament winnings. After you get rid of the unencyclopedic blow-by-blow hand descriptions of that win, what's left? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend and WP:BLP1E. Crafty (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearer consensus has formed now. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hermione Way[edit]

Appears to be notable only by association with famous brother. MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Appears to squeak past requirement of secondary sources (article in spectator.co.uk, couple others). Matt Deres (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much a COI with the contributors to this. Not notable enough to warrant an article, especially as the subject is piggybacking on the (questionable) notability of her brother. Parkerparked (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

she is hot but not famous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.33.157.34 (talk • contribs) her brother is famous. she has nice boobs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.33.157.34 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The secondary source mentions are too trivial to warrant a full article. Even [71], which is a full interview with just her and not her brother, does not really establish notability, as it is only that one piece and not multiple ones that establish her claim to notability. NW (Talk) 00:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she is barely famous and not notable; WP:N requires multiple reliable sources; I see one. No comment on whether she's hot. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TCNJ Department of Technological Studies[edit]

fails WP:ORG, hardly any coverage [72]. looks like a copy and paste from a faculty handbook or promo flyer. I oppose redirect/merge as an unlikely search term and not much useful content. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. agreed that it is not notable and does look like a copy and paste job. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Possibly flawed Gsearch in Nomination. Try this one. Most people use the short form of "Dept." Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual faculty/departments. Notability is not inherited and there is no apparent significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Wrekk[edit]

DELETE. Fails WP:MUSIC in my opinion, nothing here screams notability. JBsupreme (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability just does not seem established - they guy is just another DJ. Also concerns over WP:COI judging by the username of the article creator. Looks like a puff piece to me. M♠ssing Ace 10:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, self promotional.Fuzbaby (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DJ Who? Crafty (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PlanningPME[edit]

Software developed by Target Skills and written up by User:Targetskills. Spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sourcing to indicate notability in the article, and I couldn't find anything more substantial than download sites, SEO, and a couple press releases. The blatant COI doesn't exactly make me want to look very hard in any case. —Korath (Talk) 18:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable commercial software article lacking 3rd party refs, created by single-issue user. Dialectric (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FISC EuroTour[edit]

The biggest problem with this article, with no significant contributors other than User:Fisceurotour and maybe an IP, is the promotional tone, such as "For its financing the foundation is totally dependent on membership fees and donations" in the lead section. Even if we wanted an article on this race, I think we'd have to start from scratch. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:Fisceurotour has largely the same content, and it's tagged for speedy deletion. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 09:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus despite being listed for two weeks, so no prejudice towards a speedy renomination. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Abdulrahman[edit]

Non notable DimaG (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, although a stub now; clearly notable as one of Osama's "closest" mujahideen, the son of an extremely notable cleric, and the subject of news stories himself. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. There is no description in the article as it stands that denotes notability in this case. If some other sources can be found, my vote may change, but not as it exists now.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I agree that being an advisor to OBL, the world's most dangerous terrorist, is sufficient to establish notability all by itself. Geo Swan (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bentley (entrepreneur)[edit]

What was the name of that guy who was accepting payment in exchange for a Wikipedia article, later banned by Jimbo Wales? This looks like one of those promotional/peacocky articles about a non-notable that he would have written. Or some other ad agency. JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: all the refs look like PR- "aboutus" page, the "prnewswire" site is where companies make press releases, "secinfo" while maybe candid encyclodedic material in some cases would be like a listing in the yellow pages unless perhaps cited in an unaffiliated filing (" our company considers the BioSubject to be a notable competitor" or etc). There is nothing AFAIK wrong with paid well-written pieces but it does take forever to remove puffery and peacock feathers and create a stark, balanced ( aka useful), fact based description. I guess this is what bothers me about the Darwin- there is a tendency for people to want to describe him as being politically correct while being unable to find any good points about Hitler. The personal benefit of writing an encyclopedia entry, or supporting science, is suspending opinion long enough to give yourself and honest shot at analysing data so you can later have better ( more agreement with reality ) opinions. I'm nerdseeksblonde and I endorsed this message LOL Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per clear case of WP:SPAM/WP:NOTADVERTISING - Epson291 (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant self promotion, fails WP:BIO, limited third party coverage [73]. LibStar (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that's what they said when I was new to Wikipedia and put up my blatant self-promotion page too (and it's gone, of course!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Nice amount of improvement given to this what I considered a vaguely notable fictional band. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 20:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boyz in the Sink[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article during its five month existence has been prodded, sent off to AfD, redirected, prodded again and during all of this has had nothing introduced besides an NN album tracklist. As before, nothing here or in random searches shows that this band is notable. treelo _radda 02:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was previously another AfD in 2007 which did result in deletion, an admins might want to check the content of that article against this one for a possible speedy G4 deletion. treelo _radda 02:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 02:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources found during the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyz in the Sink (VeggieTales) nomination would still seem to apply here, which would establish notability, since notability is not temporary. Rlendog (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'm gonna say weak keep here. Rlendog is right about the notability stuff. I've removed some ORish edits. Crafty (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a fictional element that recurrs in a television show. Merging it to Silly Songs with Larry would also work. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, BitS meet four separate criteria of WP:BAND:
  - Criterion 1: Subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Reviews and such exist, and I am just added two to the article.
  - Criterion 4: Concert tour info has been added to the article.
  - Criterion 6: The musicians--even though they're just cartoon characters--involved in the band are notable by virtue of their other cartoon singing exploits, as are, implicitly, Mike Nawrocki and Phil Vischer, who do the voices.
  - Criterion 10: Their performance of the Bellybutton song for The Ballad of Little Joe meets this criterion.
- Thus, my original keep argument is far weaker than if we simply treat the fictional band as a WP:BAND. Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are trivial mentions. Those sources could be added to the articles proposed for merge but they are not added as of yet so the current content does not require merging. Savidan 18:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I added several more entries as references. Does that make your !vote a merge, then? Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pleased to see all the work put in to fully establish notability and I'm sufficiently convinced that this band, fictional though it is, to be notable. treelo _radda 20:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cook's Last Voyage[edit]

AfDs for this article:

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:NF. Iowateen (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, films aren't inherently notable, so the lack of substantial coverage = nonnotability. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nyttend. Polargeo (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication from the article that this is notable. From the context, I can figure out that this must have been about Captain Cook, but if it's difficult to find sources for a film made in 2002, that's a clue that it went unnoticed. Mandsford (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus despite being listed for two weeks, so no prejudice towards a speedy renomination. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geeknights[edit]

Suspect notability. This podcast did win an award, but against other non-notable competition which questions the validity of the award. Wade Hunter (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far the nominator's only non-userspace edits have been to open 3 AfDs, including this one. - Dravecky (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article appears to meet notability requirements of third-party coverage, subject has won a notable award (one for which the nominator is also trying to have that article deleted!), and the notability of your competitors matters little if you win. (That's why we have articles about every person who has won office in the United States House of Representatives but darned few about the folks that lost those races.) - Dravecky (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If my grandma started giving out awards for best cookie recipes are her awards then notable? I question the notability of a Parsec award. What exactly makes a Parsec Award notable? Can anyone put together a website/group and start giving out awards - what are the requirements for recognition? What popular mainstream podcasts have won a Parsec Award? Wade Hunter (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another example, say I won a state spelling bee and I'm given an award/trophy... do I then become notable? Is a state spelling bee award more or less notable than a parsec award? Maybe all spelling bee champs deserve an article on Wikipedia? If Geeknights won something similar to a Grammy Award or even something with a lot less caliber but recognizable by many, there would be no problem. I don't think the Parsec award cuts it in my opinion. Wade Hunter (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Which explains, I suppose, why all of your edits since you registered have been focused on three AfDs, including this one and one for the Parsec Awards. However, please understand that "notability" is a technical term on Wikipedia related to coverage by reliable third-party source and, in some cases, other specific criteria. It's not about personal feelings or what you "think" should be notable. Do I care about Hog Island (Wisconsin)? No, but Wikipedia policy says that all real geographic places are automatically notable. Is the world clamoring to learn more about rookie Texas Rangers reliever Guillermo Moscoso? Probably not, but Wikipedia has a clear policy about the notability of professional athletes that means Mr. Moscoso gets an article just like Babe Ruth or Nolan Ryan. And Wikipedia has a general notability guideline that says a subject receiving coverage by reliable third-party sources is presumed notable. The Parsec Award may or may not be enough by itself to justify an article... but this article is also sourced per the guidelines and thus may be presumed notable. Personal feelings, your cookie-loving grandma, and hypotheticals don't enter into it. - Dravecky (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Replay:A rookie with a MLB team is notable because MLB is notable. There are thousands of baseball fans who would know who Guillermo Moscoso is even if he plays in limited capacity. Hog Island is notable because it's a real landmark. Are there any notable experts or persons of authority for Parsec Awards? None that I'm aware of. If I decided to award Geeknights the 'Super Duper Blue Ribbon' award, does that make Geeknights notable as well because of my award? I don't see how the Parsec Awards are notable. If you can explain exactly how they are – let me know. Wade Hunter (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Here is my two cents on this article; I believe the award is notable but just the award itself. Receiving such a minor award however does not confer notability on any level. I am also having a hard time trying to find any reliable sources on this topic, what I have found is articles from some guys blog as seen with this, and this; and some ladies blog seen here. On to the sources already in the article itself. I have analyzed the sources and have found many flaws, we have a broken link, a link that leads to the wrong page, a forum, another forum, and yet another forum we also have a wiki page, and sheesh what a shock another forum and all the rest are primary or are in no way reliable. The bottom line is this article fails our sourcing guidelines and relies on blogs, forums and wikis for its content. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The specific policy that governs these sources is WP:SPS which states, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable" --Marcusmax(speak) 02:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This user account appears to have been created solely to delete articles, as its first comment two weeks ago was "How do you delete articles?" and its only edits have been in AfDs. 68.244.159.15 (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your only edits are to afds also, and wikipedia policy as I have demonstrated proves this is not notable. -Marcusmax(speak) 15:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Considering all of "my" edits have been made in the past couple hours, it would be painfully obvious that I'm simply not logged in at the moment (I don't have my Wikipedia password memorized and am not on my home computer.) I am also not nominating anything for deletion--the nominating user hasn't done anything on Wikipedia other than nominate articles for deletion and was unaware of how the deletion process worked until very recently. 68.244.159.15 (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you are a user who is not logged in, then you would know that this article and organization does not meet our notability criteria, who cares what the nominators purpose for wanting this deleted is the fact remains that this is non-notable and does not incorporate reliable sources and fails WP:SPS. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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