Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 15

< November 14	November 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo World Store

Nintendo is a large and powerful corporation, no contest as to its notability.

I do not feel the same about the "Nintendo World Store" however. It is not that notable at all really. JacobPowers (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.1,390,000 Google hits, definitely meets notability, verifiability. Equivalent to an Apple Store policy wise. I would weakly suggest being merged into Nintendo main article, however I find it's best suited as a stand alone article. Digital^NinjaWTF 00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add this article to my userpage To-Do list if it remains. Definitely recommend expansion. Digital^NinjaWTF 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References in GameSpot, Reuters, USAToday and another reliable third-party sources. This article needs to be wikify, not deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Sources are numerous. My logic would follow Digital's. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add reliable sources. The biggest hub for anything and everything Nintendo has to be notable. MuZemike (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a Google search might serve as a semi-reliable barometer of notability, the ultimate test (and requirement) is non-trivial third party coverage by reliable sources. So far, none have been presented, and none of the arguments for keeping this article are grounded anywhere close to policy. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage by reliable sources that could give the subject comprehensiveness, thus failing WP:GNG. Reliable sources so far give passing references in the form of "a sale or launch event is going to take place there" or "it is opening on this date". Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — added some iffy sources that I tried to find on the article's talk page. MuZemike (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nintendo. A Google search turns up hits, but hit counts are not a replacement for reliable sources. There are assertions that there is coverage in third party sources but none have actually been put forth as an example. My own Google news search shows that the store is mentioned quite often, but I found no articles where the store is the subject. As such, inpendent notability is not established and referenceable information can be merged into th main article about the company. -- Whpq (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable; if not merge to Nintendo Nintendofootball (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - In what way is it "clearly" notable? -- Whpq (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sura (film)

Crystal ballery. Film is in production and already suffering trouble (searching for a new director). Delete until this film is made. Even if there are enough sources to support the contents, it's not yet notable. Mgm|^(talk) 00:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL and nom. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which notability guidelines? Juzhong (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, In addressing the nom's concerns, because earlier sources are now old news, as of at least November 8, the director is Gautham Menon and production is continuing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the film has stopped production due to disputes. The film has been user-fied anyway, so a delete should be the choice. Universal Hero (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between this and the rest of Category:Upcoming films? Juzhong (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N and WP:NFF Juzhong (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Article can be recreated if/when the film is ever completed and released. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

With respects, we're past Crystal, as the film has begun principle filming. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Kingdom Keepers. Sandstein 19:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jez

This character does not establish notability independent of The Kingdom Keepers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main article is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then fix it. Redirect to main article and request a protection if it doesn't stick. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sounds okay to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect Article's subject may not be notable, but individual pieces of information do not need to pass WP:N, just WP:V. Merge whatever seems useful, delete the rest. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Kingdom Keepers. Sandstein 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Lockhart

This character does not establish notability independent of The Kingdom Keepers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main article is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article and request a protection if it doesn't stick. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article, definitely. Good call MacGyver. Digital^NinjaWTF 00:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Notability of character not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect Article's subject may not be notable, but individual pieces of information do not need to pass WP:N, just WP:V. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Kingdom Keepers#Characters. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philby (The Kingdom Keepers)

This character does not establish notability independent of The Kingdom Keepers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main article is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article and request a protection if it doesn't stick. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was linked a disabiguation page... ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it was originally a dab page until September. It was reverted after the AfD was started. TTN (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy restore revision where it was a disambig page. Shyamal (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment was for the Philby page. Shyamal (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Philby (The Kingdom Keepers)) non notable Shyamal (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect Article's subject may not be notable, but individual pieces of information do not need to pass WP:N, just WP:V. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Will the character referred to above be included in the disambig and linked to the parent article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "Philby" which came to mind when I saw this title is the super-spy Kim Philby. Whether this is kept, deleted, merged or whatever, a pointer to that biography would be in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The previous history of "Philby" as a disambiguation was undoubtedly valid. To prevent any further confusion arising from this, I have split out the history which has to do with The Kingdom Keepers character, and moved it to a new title. This AFD is updated to reflect that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Kingdom Keepers#Characters. A character which just appears in one trilogy does not need an entire article for himself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This seems reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Kingdom Keepers#Characters, per the usual consensus for unremarkable fictional characters such as this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Kingdom Keepers#Characters. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Whitman

This character does not establish notability independent of The Kingdom Keepers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main article is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article and request a protection if it doesn't stick. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect Article's subject may not be notable, but individual pieces of information do not need to pass WP:N, just WP:V. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Information should be included in main article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulthuan

This fictional location does not establish notability independent of Warhammer Fantasy Battle through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough. TTN (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although, WP:ILIKEIT and I enjoy reading just this type of thing (like all the Star Wars, Wizards First Rule, and Lord of the Rings fictional locations) I have to admit IMO I don't see notability here. So, I'm forced !vote delete as the material should be included into the main article on this one. Sorry. Digital^NinjaWTF 00:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Raven1977 (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCORES Broadcast

Non-notable website which concentrates on local high school sports. My speedy deletion tag was removed by an anon. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This certainly looks non-notable to me. LinguistAtLarge 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion, this should qualify under CSD code 7A, simply because there is no apparent notability. Digital^NinjaWTF 00:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CSD#A7. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 00:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fail notability guidelines. Also, per all of the above (which is essentially what I wrote) _David ^WS _(contribs) 00:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it as spam. Alexius08 (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coming up with no notability over here. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N and WP:V, no references, looks non-notable to me. - DustyRain (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Ninan

This was tagged for speedy deletion as a repost of previously deleted content (G4), but that was also a speedy, while G4 specifically applies to AFDed articles. Besides, I think that although the claim is weak, there is a claim of notability in there, so I'm bringing it here instead. Procedural nomination Mgm|^(talk) 23:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like i argued before, I think this article should stay beacuse he is the primary political cartoonist for the times of india. do tell me why u are deleting this article he is also the former cartoonist for an Indian Magazine called Target (magazine) also read this blog about ajit ninan as well:http://princeofnormal.blogspot.com/2008/11/ajit-ninan.html Xyn1 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left Xyn a note with some tips. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ajit Nainan, a political cartoonist of Times of India newspaper, does (or did; not sure) cartoons every day for Times of India. The first link in the article shows Ninan's world collection from Times of India's website. Article needs expansion. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cartoonist for the world's largest circulation English language non-tabloid newspaper not notable? Let's use a bit of common sense here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: same logic as given by Phil Bridger. --GDibyendu (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known cartoonist. Salih (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well recognized cartoonist for Times of India. Has also published illustrations in India Today. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (WP:SNOW) There are ample sources here to demonstrate the notability of the subject beyond a reasonable doubt. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 06:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Stembridge, Jr.

This article fails to assert notability of its subject. Being a radio announcer for a major team does not constitute notability under WP:ENTERTAINER. References amount to two passing mentions. Bongo matic 23:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are a few mentions of Terry Stembridge, Jr. in the press, but they do seem rather unimportant. His father is Terry Stembridge, but notability is not inherited. LinguistAtLarge 00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Stembridge spent one season as the radio play-by-play announcer for the Minnesota Vikings," that's the opening sentence. Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not seem to have the sort of coverage one would expect from a notable sportscaster. In addition, none of the positions that he has worked in seem to be high profile enough to confer notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:V is policy, and says that if we can't find reliable sources on a topic, as here, we shouldn't have an article about it. WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT are also weak arguments if nobody has bothered to write about it in a reliable source. Sandstein 17:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live USB system creator

No references to reliable sources, no demonstration of the significance of the subject matter. Googling "Live USB system creator" -Wikipedia results in a mere 42 unique hits, indicating this program has not attracted sufficient attention. Garrett^Talk 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was THE first tool for Ubuntu, that allowed the creation of Live USBs, just because it has not much coverage, does not make it suitable for deletion, besides Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability are just guidelines, not policy. I think deleting it would be a mistake. Jerebin (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article needs serious work, sure, but it is also true that it was one of the first graphical tool to create Ubuntu Live USBs. SF007 (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keep arguments seem to be based on the program's utility. It could cure cancer, but if it hasn't been covered in reliable sources sufficient to establish its notability, it shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. If the fact that those are guidelines bothers you (it shouldn't, guidelines are important), consider that this article also fails WP:V, which is a policy. gnfnrf (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines don't bother me, and regarding WP:V, this article does not make any extraordinary claims, like having the cure for cancer, something that would of course require proper sources. I just don't understand deleting an article just because trivial information that anyone can prove can't be found on "reliable sources"... It is even recommended at the Ubuntu wiki [1]! It just makes me sad to see articles about good software go away, just because of notability issues, even if the software is excelent (not saying that's the case!), it really doesn't make sense to me... Jerebin (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom and Gnfnrf. This program may have great utility but if it has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications, well, sorry, its not ready for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Try Wikia instead. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jerebin. It's useful, therefore it helps. Shouldn't we keep things that help the encyclopedia? Coastalsteve984 (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a1, no content after removing unsourced part (all of it); seems to be article author's unpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why riding hood might cry

Ineligible for speedy deletion, creator removed PROD, so not uncontroversial. I submit that this novel fails WP:BOOK as I have been unable to verify the existence, let alone notability of it through a search of Google/Google News/Books/Scholar. the skomorokh 22:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, if it exists at all (I can find no evidence of the author or book). Possible link between book's author ("Hieu Vo") and article creator ("WtHIEU19"). Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even the references provided toward the end of the discussion convince few. We might as well save ourselves the WP:BLP trouble for this borderline case. Sandstein 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pantone

Low notability negative BLP. The guy took a patent out on some "alternative fuel" device - which might be interesting - but the article is really about his seemingly unrelated run-ins with the law, and medical difficulties. It's been here since 2004, but for the life of me I don't know why. WP:COATRACK? Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete He's a favorite of the suppressed technology crowd, some think he's being persecuted and his technology suppressed. There is of course no evidence that it ever worked, and its very likely that he's a crazy scammer. The article might serve some purpose as an unbiased view, a counterpoint to the conspiracy nuts that are the rest of the links you get when you google him. Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. That article is a BLP nightmare right now. There needs to be major cleanup. I personally think the only way to save it is delete and re-write although I'm neutral if there is enough verifiability for that to happen. Digital^NinjaWTF 00:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we remove all the BLP issues we're left with an article about someone with a patent. The GEET device doesn't seem to have any wide application, so it's just one of thousands of dust-gathering inventions, not really worth an article (yet) in my opinion. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established. Article needs work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Established by what?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the good references to articles about him. Isn't that how it's usually done? Not being snippy, just seemed to have a lot of article about him. Any BLP violations should be fixed though. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this needs to be deleted and GEET needs to go into an alternative fuel article. Digital^NinjaWTF 06:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=252142130#Paul_Pantone Resess (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC) - user has been blocked as a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gaby de wilde.[reply]
Keep I don't think notability is an issue here. But the article could need some heavy reworking. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete. Notability has been established, IMHO, but not the presence of anything that can be said about him without violating WP:BLP, either of him, or of the judge. (The statements made about the judge's ruling are legally inconsistent and unsourced, so clearly imply the judge is either an idiot or biased against Mr. Pantone.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed in list of Pseudoscience-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arthur Rubin, guyonthesubway and Prebys, have persistently changed the date at which Pantone was locked away. Locked away without a sentence that is. when corrected they emediatly reinserted their lie back into the article, conveniently deleting 4 sources that contradicted their lie. 2 news articles, the actual court recordings and the Paul Pantone defence program.
They have repeatedly deleted all my contributions from the article calling them "nonsense", delete as much as 8 sources at a time. The arguments for deleting things are all lies. The archive reflects they have done this drive-by and delete act before on this page. WP:BLP clearly states they should behave themselves and treat people with respect. They apparently think they can just lie about the content that I dispute (Redacted. Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)). I object and now the whole article should be deleted.[reply]
"so clearly imply the judge is either an idiot or biased against Mr. Pantone."; The reader may read the news and/or listen to the court recordings from 2005 and make up his own mind. (Personal opinion and unsourced libellous assertion removed. Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)) I'm trying to write an article here, then this team of 3 editors just deletes everything and they very obviously lie all the way.[reply]
This behaviour prevents others from creating an objective decision about this deletion request. The article is in a far better state than it looks. The 3 editors have the article in a kind of death grip where no one can be allowed to edit it. The 8365 byte article can be found here. The team version is only 5446 bytes. Arthur Rubin goes as far as to state I need his permission to correct his lies. He didn't allow me to edit this article so I have documented his behaviour here
There are over a thousand tractors and cars in Europe driving on water mixed with hydrocarbons, old oil, old cooking oil and lots of other fuel mixtures. engines like this one here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5238596150388648518#1m35s no, this video is not in the article, it's just so that you can see what exactly we are talking about here
The US government is indeed torturing the inventor, no one knows if he is still alive.[2] this alone is a note worthy conspiracy theory. More importantly, we need this stuff to fix our economic implosion.
There is nothing wrong with the article, you just didn't allow me to edit it. I've had enough of this childish game. If idiots like this can just go around like raving lunatics here, lie and harass people it's time for me to go. You can read the details here: [3]
- Bye bye. Resess (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there are BLP violations in the above, and which should be redacted, but I have no idea how to go about that.Verbal chat 13:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Done. Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Blatant advertising for a product combined with libelous legal charges? Speedy delete it. Alexius08 (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There appears to be a content dispute over the issues you are addressing. But what's undisputed is the subject's notability, deeming the article appropriate for inclusion even as dispute resolution and article fixes may be warranted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising and soapboxing of person that is non-notable aside from things we can't have on wikipedia (BLP), and barely notable at that. GEET is non-notable on its own. Verbal chat 13:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After seeing User:Resess's complaint at AN and looking at the article history and talk page, I'm protecting this article - if the decision is keep, please sort out the problems on the talk page. If there are any BLP violations, see the top of the article about how to get edits made through the protection. dougweller (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but allow re-creation from scratch if notability can be established using reliable sources as the first step in such re-creation. In the current form, it's unsalvageable. --Athol Mullen (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, references do not establish notability. Thousands of people are convicted of fraud every year, the fact that this guy has a patent on a non-commercialized and fantastical technology (breakdown of heavy elements in a chemical reaction! funny!) doesn't raise him above the crowd. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and Timvickers. I was going to go for keeping him and have been trying to find sources but have not been successful. There's really not enough to have an article on this guy. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Changing to weak keep There may be enough sources here. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What about the news stories referenced in the article? And a quick search shows another extensive story in the Salt Lake Weekly: Fuel Injected Lunatic: Inventor Paul Pantone hoped to save the world. Now, will the world save him? By Stephen Dark. That story alone has a lot of information in it and goes a long way to establish notability and there are others already referenced. Posted 07/26/2007 at http://merlib.org/node/5820ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Salt Lake Weekly is a "free alternative newsweekly" with the slogan “If we don’t print it, who will?” (link) Not a source I'd be happy hanging a BLP on. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and so? You're suggesting it's not a reliable source? Based on the fact that it's free, that it's weekly, or that you don't like their motto? I'm not aware of any policy that suggests that established weekly papers aren't reliable sources. Can you cite one?ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm saying that this is not a high-quality source, and consequently although it would be acceptable as a citation for uncontentious facts such as cinema locations, it can't be used as the sole source for a BLP. Indeed, this freesheet seems to be the only publication paying Pantone much attention, which is odd to say the least and makes me question its reliability further. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources Google news is full of them. Here's one from a French source [4], here's an AP story reported in the Daily Courier [5], here's one from the Desert News [6], another one from the Desert News [7], and another one from the desert news [8], another source en francais [9], and here's a story from the Mountain Democrat [10].ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We're really scraping the bottom of a very shallow barrel if a passing mention in this is the best we can do to establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The weakest reference you can point to is one that includes four paragraphs about Pantone and his invention from an AP story calling it the "star of the conference"? You still haven't provided any evidence that a well established weekly paper in Salt Lake City is a bad source, or that any of these other stories don't qualify as good references clearly establishing Pantone's notability. Is the AP unreliable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I said that was the best, the worst is the one you linked to from Desert News titled 27 Utahns get patents for their 16 inventions. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Unless you've purchased access to the full article I don't know how you can know what's in it. But the bit I can view says: "Paul Pantone, Price. A novel fuel pre-treater for pre-treating an alternate fuel to render it usable in internal combustion engines, furnaces, or turbines. Filed May 16, 1997." Patent 5,794,601. I think getting a patent is fairly notable in and of itself, especially one of this nature. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Getting a patent means nothing apart from the fact that you can afford the fee. You could patent a means of harvesting green cheese from the moon if you wished, but that wouldn't make you important. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe not by itself, but that isn't the only claim in the article. Having the idea patented is but a single element that demonstrates the notability, and it can be sourced. It does strengthen the case because it isn't the only element. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for being a nut. A notable nut with sources. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One quick note: Being a BLP, we likely need to trim the article down a bit (to the best sources) to be damn sure about the claims. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Miss Puerto Rico per consensus and plausibility as a search term. I looked at both articles, and there appeared to be no information that needed merging over. Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 03:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Puerto Rico 2000

Notabilty uncertain. Say Headcheese!--hexa Chord ² 22:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. National and International Miss Contests are generally notable, but there's not much of an article here. Merge any missing information to Miss Puerto Rico and redirect as a plausible search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No independent notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per above - Tony the Marine (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The other guys said it best...and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Property and Art Digitization

Unsourced essay on IP. Could well be original research. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay. We already have articles about Intellectual property and Digitization. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an essay and there's nothing in the article to suggest its importance. At most this could be a line or two in the IP/copyright articles. LH (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Surely there's some guideline this can be speedy deleted under? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a missing person website, and although we wish the people concerned the very best of luck with finding Asha - no doubt individual editors would be more than willing to help in whatever way they can - Wikipedia's policies are very clear on this. Please see WP:BLP1E for more information on our guidelines on this subject, and remember that Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, and that perhaps Wikinews would be a more appropriate venue, although not perhaps an idfeal one - I am not aware of Wikinews' policies. I have informed the office about this closure. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed header. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Degree

WP:BLP1E. If there's enough coverage for the event to be considered notable, the article should cover that. Unfortunately, being a missing person alone doesn't appear to make a person notable. Contested prod. Onorem ♠Dil 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her disappearance did not cause major changes in how law enforcement handle disappearances and there doesn't seem to be anything else remarkable about the case. (perhaps we can transwiki somewhere?) - Mgm|^(talk) 00:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any way to keep this information as a public service? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a WP:VOTE, it is a discussion. Just saying delete or keep won't result in your !vote being considered. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ChildofMidnight brought this to my attention. If it was kept, it can't be because it is a "public service", as that isn't a criteria for inclusion. (that rationale fits the WP:IMPORTANT issue). Some of these missing children issues do get significant coverage, including from the FBI, Americas most wanted, etc. They question is "are these 'independent' in this context? Obviously newspaper reports would be. I am not sure of any consensus on this issue, and the last AFD I was involved in was less "sourceable" than this is (ghits are reasonable for this topic). Based on a flat reading of wp:rs and wp:n, this would be kept as there are several sources available, just not in the article. Based on the bigger picture, I am not sure if we are being a directory for missing children, as many have reliable sources. This also raises WP:BLP issues. We need a bigger audience to get a consensus. Withholding a !vote for now. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up From what I can see, there has never been a consensus to treat missing persons any differently than other living persons. There is one twist: they are often a victim of a crime (at least kidnapping), and most are children, and this is very problematic for BLP reasons. These can be easily primary sourced, and most (including this one) can be secondary sources adequately as well. Regardless of the outcome of this AFD, we need a larger discussion somewhere else (likely at BLP) to come up with a guideline for these, as they are becoming more frequent. Not to be morbid, but we don't know if they are alive, but I would say that WP:BLP applies until proven otherwise or another guideline is developed. Still not sure how to !vote, although sources exist. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and natalie halloway or the amber hagerman case are more of a reason to have a page in their dedication and information? there is no difference in the cases, except that asha degree is African American. This is another case of "missing pretty white girls" get news coverage. The Asha Degree disappearance is as much of a case as the other two. The whole of North and South Carolina know of her, and nearly 8 years later, still wonder whats happened. The case remains unsolved and by putting her information on wikipedia, it furthers the advancement of possible closure, or findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.231.75 (talk)
- If you are going to play the race card, have the courtesy to back it with examples. Discounting your example, this is why I am asking about a policy, to insure all cases are treated equal. Also, please read WP:WAX, as other article existing is not a reason to keep. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well sir or madam.. these days u have to play the race card as things still arent equal. and as i said natalie halloway, and amber hagerman. 2 examples. your welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.231.75 (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the event (which the article should be about) - as tragic as it may be - doesn't seemed to have received coverage beyond that of a typical news story. As all information within articles must be verifiable then sadly any race or gender based bias (in terms of amount of coverage) amongst the reliable press will likely be reflected on Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We aren't news, and wikipedia isn't the place to fix the "missing pretty white girl" syndrome that the media has. Protonk (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage to pass WP:N. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 04:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice against a future Merge as discussed here, and which sounds like a sensible option to take to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1970s Topps

The information, often in expanded form, is repeated on pages for the individual years. See: 1970 Topps, 1971 Topps, 1972 Topps, 1973 Topps, 1974 Topps, 1975 Topps, 1976 Topps, 1977 Topps, 1978 Topps, and 1979 Topps. There is no reason to have this article and the other ten. The Almighty Bob (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to the pages named. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Ten Pound Hammer_David ^WS _(contribs) 22:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I chose not to make individual years (for the 70s not 80s/90s) because the pages would amount to stubs. The decade format would be a fair treatment. Besides, the nomination is made by a brand new user who just replaced edits made by a recently banned user. The nomination is retaliatory. Either way the decade format was the original and was only split up in an effort to include more photos. The use of photos was ok'd however rendering the need to split up the years pointless. The notability of individual years was an issue for 90s pages so I was told to combine them. I have since been able to expand the 90s but I definitely would not separate the 70s on account of minimal content and notability. This, by the way has already been through cabal, non free review, discussions et al so the decision has already been made to keep it. Libro0 (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ A possible merge has been proposed and should be discussed in the appropriate forum. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Consensus is delete. So individual articles appears to be the consensus.~~ ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is reduntant and the viable articles should not be merged into this one. This article is a mess and really does not contribute anything, while the individual articles seem to have more content. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ten Pound Hammer said it all. Punched Judy (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked indef Secret ^account 12:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It makes no sense to have something that is just taken from a whole mess of other articles. This is quite messy and pooly laid out. Total Mench (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked indef Secret ^account 12:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge sorry I don't consider this as reduntant, in fact all those 1970 Topps], 1971 Topps, etc forms should be merged into the article instead of viceversa. I don't see indiviual baseball card years notable in anyway. Secret ^account 12:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the nominator and the two comments above me, I just blocked indef as obvious socks of User:Baseball Card Guy, AFD should be closed if anything. Secret ^account 12:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide evidence that those two users are obvious socks of Baseball Card Guy? Libro0 in the past has accused others he has disagreed with as sockpuppets and in the case with me not once, but twice (plus a still ongoing campaign of harassment), was disproven all because I disagreed with him over these silly baseball card articles. If anyone should be banned or at least have his behavior looked into it is Libro0. He has wasted enough of the community's time. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Baseball Card Guy, where five Baseball Card Guy socks were discovered and subsequently blocked. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Topps articles are in kind of a mess because of disruptions by Baseball Card Guy who was indef blocked a week ago. I don't know if decade or year articles is optimal, but of we let Libro0 and others work on it for a while without further disruptions such as this bad faith AfD nomination from a sock, it will be worked out eventually. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Apoc2400. I have tried to work on this article and am continuing research for more information with which I can expand it. For the time being I would like the article kept. I am entirely open to the possibility of subdiving provided enough notable content is found. Libro0 (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss at relevant talk pages. Redundancy is not a valid reason for deletion. We have 1970s and 1970, 1971, ... 1979, as well as 20th century, and we don't delete any of those for "redundancy". Now there may be some merit to merging the year articles into the decade, or vice versa, to reducing the detail in the decade article and replacing it with links to the individual year articles; but neither of these requires deletion and so the discussion should be done somewhere else besides AfD. DHowell (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FilePile.com

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on Google and Google books. Schuym1 (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any sort of Alexa-like visitor counting back then? It might prove useful to have such data to see if it was really popular. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that sites need more than a good Alexa ranking. Schuym1 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No suggestion of notability and no references. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability, even if it was popular, you still need notability. _David ^WS _(contribs) 12:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Popularity" does not equate to notability. If there is no coverage from reliable third party sources then we cannot be hosting an article here. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find ANY (0) 3rd party coverage history using Google. Delete as per WP:N and WP:V policy. - DustyRain (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Metrofeed (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonpseudoscience

Unreferenced text that may be a creation of manipulative language with words cleverly inserted into article ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 21:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this article is to indicate that, on account of contamination of academic concerns by political interests promoted by plutocrats/capitalists, the "conventional" use (i.e., now in vogue) of the terms "pseudoscience" and "science" have been very nearly reversed from their natural applications : what are conventionally styled "sciences" are largely actually pseudosciences, and what are conventionally styled "pseudosciences" may be quite adequate sciences.

These observations are quite commonly admitted by university professors privately, but not stated (by them) publicly on account of risk of losing their academic position as professor on account of policies of the wealthy vested interests (represented by the capitalist-based state). That "research" in "sciences" is heavily manipulated by grossly distorting interests of opportunistic warmongering capitalist cartels is a national and international shame and disgrace.

Historically, this situation has prevailed from the outset of science and of the universities; and, though notorious and commented upon occasionally in liberal and radical publications, is as yet in dire need of being addressed more openly and in more detail. What is at stake is, perhaps, the survival of civilization and of humanity on this planet.0XQ (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as some pretty heavy-duty original research, a point that the author of this essay seems to concede: "These observations are quite commonly admitted by university professors privately, but not stated (by them) publicly on account of risk of losing their academic position" Kristen Eriksen (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic may well be notable, but this article is all unsourced original research. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may be nonsense. Google searches come up with few hits, none of which seem tied to this rant/screed. Matt Deres (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not WP:V as conceded by author (supposed private discussions only) and on same count not WP:N and likely original research. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to WP:OR, this article is highly soapy. -Atmoz (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOR, WP:RELY, possibly WP:HOAX. Also fails (and is unlikely to ever meet) WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOT#SOAP. Cosmo0 (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ghadam-Ali Sarami

Article on an non-notable Iranian professor and author which fails both WP:PROF and WP:CREATIVE. Beyond a couple lines of biogaphy, this mostly just amounts to a listing of his books. Google turns up little more than could be expected of a minor author or a non-notable professor. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As best I can assess he seems notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, article appears to have been written by the subject himself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As his field of expertise and the number of books he has written seem to pass Wiki Creative/Academic. However, I am not in Iran, nor do I speak or read Persian, so I will assume good faith from the body of his works that they do likely exist in his country's libraries, until an editor in Iran can convince me they do not. Accepting that verification is naturally difficult due to language barriers, I will accept the sources as given as enough to show his notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this page had been untagged for a month or more, I would be inclined to delete because of the significant issues with the article. However, given that there are numerous hints of notability in the article, it seems to be more sensible to give concerned editors a chance to address them. Bongo matic 03:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep balancing this by the difficulty we have in sourcing when we encounter cultural bias. I am very reluctant to decide on the basis of saying that a modern Iranian writer of children's fiction whose works are not translated to English is non notable. I cannot imagine that the works are not reviewed in Iranian publications, but i wouldnt be able to find them. I see no basis for making a firm decision on whether he is a minor or major author, or whether his academic works are considered important; if they are, he's notable regardless of the extent of the bio. If an expert would care to comment, we might get somewhere. All I can do to help is to report that an alternative transliteration of his name is "Qadam Ali Sarami", from [11]. Bongomatic's basis for dealing with this seems reasonable to me. DGG (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adamc714 (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, the article has many issues, but you have convinced me that nominating it for deletion is premature. Perhaps the subject meets the guidelines for notability established by WP:PROF and WP:CREATIVE for Iranians and not for English-speaking audiences. Being an English-speaking American, I have no way of telling how notable Dr. Sarami is in his home country, and I did not search for any alternate spellings of his name. However, I think the article could be improved greatly and notability coulde be better assessed if we brought it an expert. I'll give everyone a chance to work on the article and make it more encyclopedic, although I am still concerned about the potential conflict of interest of the article's creator. Nomination withdrawn. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vania

No particular evidence of notability, and has a self-promotional air, with links to his (commercial) site and MySpace page. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources could be found (Google news, book, etc. all point to other people named "Vania"). Further, he fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also per WP:CSD#A3; consists only of a rephrasing of the title. Sandstein 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Award Historical and Non-Fictional Roles

Seems to be stretching it just a bit to have a list of oscars won for historical roles. See WP:IINFO and the purpose of lists at WP:LIST; I can't imagine anyone would ever search for or need this. The user in question has had oscar-related pages like this deleted before, so it isn't like he's walking into this blind. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable juncture here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer (besides, the list is empty). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, the problems of posting an article before you have anything to say. Put up at 21:16, nominated at 21:19. However, it may just as well, and it appears that the author may have had a change of mind about the topic. I'm not sure what you can say with such a list ("Ben Kingsley had an award-winning performance as Mahatma Gandhi"). But the larger question is, did he win because of his acting, or because he was acting as Gandhi? Since we don't know what motivates the Academy voters, we can't be certain. (Honestly, I don't recall if Ben Kingsley won an Oscar for Gandhi, but if he did, that would be the question). Speaking of "that is the question", if someone excels at a performance of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", we can't compare the actor to the original Caesar. Mandsford (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a viable list topic to me. Clearly notable, no? I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time on an article that might be soon deleted either, especially if I had previous effort filed in the round file. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say whether it's clearly notable or not. Although it's understandable that an author wouldn't spend lots of time on an article that might soon be deleted, I don't see the point in posting an article without at least some content. I think that the author made a mistake in that regard, saying, in effect, "This is going to be a list about _____... if it's OK with you..." Once you post an article, and it's on the list of recent changes to the system, you're offering it for review. This one was a quick read, and so it was nominated soon after it was posted. Maybe this would have been a viable or notable topic, but there's nothing within the article to show that it would have been. I do think that the portrayal of an historical figure is notable, and an actor winning an Academy award is notable... but you'd have to have a lot of context to show why the intersection of the two is noteworthy. Context could be added to justify a list of award winning or nominated performances. Going back to the Gandhi example, there are sources to show that Ben Kingsley studied the subject in depth. On the other hand, if he won, was it because he did a great job (as did the other four nominees), or was it because the voters were saying "He did a hell of a Gandhi!!". Anyway, one should post articles without worrying about what other people are going to say-- but posting an article with no content, for any reason, is pointless. Mandsford (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate (non) list. If it actually existed, this list would seem to be composed of both awards and nominations over several categories, cherry picked on account of the type of character played. The awards are clearly notable, but a list of this sort is basically trivia and original research. PC78 (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is completely devoid of any useful content. I am well aware that we should give new articles a chance and articles are always a work in progress. But the starting point needs to be non-zero. And in this case, it is not at all clear that this is a viable list. -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Www1

Minor technical topic; not notable. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for simply being inaccurate. What they are describing as a "prefix" is more commonly called a hostname. Nothing worth merging or saving. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you consider fixing the accuracy then, if you read my chat you will realize just why this needs to be included in some form or the other in the search.... first I called the hostname a prefix to simplify for other users not familiar with specialized language but if you think that is fundamental in accuracy it would be appropriate to change it. Additionally I continued to explain exactly what the prefix acts as anyway so I think you did not read the article completely. SADADS (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other hostnames like chat, ns1, ns2, ftp, store, site, shop, etc. Most of these are more common than "www1", should we have articles on all of these? The entire article could accurately be written as: "www1 is a hostname that is sometimes used by some domains (companies) for offloading server loads to another host (server) in their network." I am sorry, but I still have to say delete as I still don't see a criteria listed on Wikipedia that would include this article. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Dennis Brown fails wp:n, and it's sorta inaccurate _David ^WS _(contribs) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix/ or merge and redirect I think articles on ftp and perhaps the other topics Dennis mentions would be helpful also. Article seems perfectly encyclopedic, although it needs to be improved. And it's not just a definition. Doesn't this information make the encyclopedia more complete? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to host name (or maybe domain name. Nothing links to this article and it will never be much more than a DicDef. Matt Deres (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not a bad idea. I wouldn't oppose a merge and redirect to the appropriate article section if this information was (fixed) and included elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds ok, but problematic, same as above. www1 isn't the most common hostname. Why not create redirects for the most common hostnames? After all, if www1 needs a redirect, then hostnames that are 10x more common and get typed in 10x more often SURELY must need it for the exact same reasons, right? store. site. irc. ns1. ftp. forum. forums. blog. Netcraft can probably provide tons of others that are as common as www1, and verify this, then we just put a disambig statement on all those that already have articles... I'm not trying to be smart, it is just more problematic than it might look at first glance. The original author meant well, but this is a can of worms that we are better off not opening. I won't get in a fight about it, but want you to understand that there are some sound reasons why this doesn't work so well. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've certainly made a good argument for keeping this article. And I would like to note that your initial reasoning stated "delete for simply being inaccurate" which I'm confident you know is a reason to fix the article and not to delete it. I trust you'll take action accordingly. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The great part is that no fixing is needed! Hostname already exists and is the proper term. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to webserver 76.66.198.46 (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I took the time to at least make this article accurate, although it still needs deleting. The one source was deleted as not only did it fail wp:rs, but it was simply wrong. Feel free to revert. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing special about "www1". It could be "bippitybppetyboo" and it would still be fine. It's essentially a host-name form of load balancing (computing) and there's not even a compelling reason for a redirect as using www1 does not necessarily mean that load-blanacing is being attempted. It could be a case of multiple sites in a large organisation that have different business owners responsible for the content and they've numbered when www1, www2, www3. In other words, the article content isn't even accurate. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This subject is very encyclopedic. I found the information on why www1 is sometimes used to be helpful and interesting. I hope whatever decision is made, people searching for an explanation of this type of web address will be able to find the information they are looking for in our encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Spring Tavern

Fails notability requirements per WP:Corp and WP:Notability (restaurants). Most online mentions of it are incidental ("we stopped there for lunch") or not directly related ("brush fires came close to Cold Spring Tavern") --Kickstart70TC 21:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I first looked at this one, I agreed but I did some searching and I found enough citations from the first page of a google search to establish notability. It was a stagecoach stop, it has been reviewed by LA Times and others. It has received enough press to quality, likely from their unusual menu and history. The history alone probably qualifies as notable since it is already sourced. I will likely add a few more citations, since they aren't that hard to find. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and kudos to Dennis for adding those sources. The LA Times link alone is enough to establish notability. --Mgm|^(talk) 00:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since newspaper reviews tend to be somewhat exhaustive rather than selective, they probably should not be included in the criteria for notability. Please take a look at the proposed guideline above. --Kickstart70TC 02:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument, but in this case, there is more to the place than good food. The history and "unusual menu" add to it. How many restaurants serve bear and have served lion? There are other sources out there. A look at Google books brings up some interesting hits, 51 of them. The first page would probably suffice as passing the criteria in wp:n. Again, at first I was skeptical, but this is really one very notable place. If anything, we are not doing it justice, and we would use someone familiar with it to expand it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough...notability can definitely be established through other methods. Restaurant reviews are a horrible indicator of notability however, and unfortunately they are brought forward in restaurant Afds to support claims of notability without providing any other reliable source. Please help with the proposed guideline if you have more input. Thanks! --Kickstart70TC 02:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this and figured it would be an easy to delete, but now it actually sounds like some place I would want to visit. Besides, now we have improved it somewhat, so it is better from the AFD. Hopefully someone will do more. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm very hesitant to vote in accordance with Dennis, but I see no alternative in this case. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know Dennis, but I have no hesitation voting to keep, based on his reported research. The place is notable. Geoff (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ChildofMidnight loves me, he is just jealous of how right I am sometimes ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Online Network

No clear notability, appears to be advert. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, not wiki The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm surprised the A7/G11 speedy tags were declined, certainly doesn't meet the notability requirements, borderline spam. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article already was deleted once as CSD G11. Skarebo (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone should educate the author. Their talk page comment shows they have no clue about the guidelines involved.- Mgm|^(talk) 00:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete (I did the speedy!) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it again and salt to prevent that can of spam from returning. Alexius08 (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glamour (charm)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, there's a perfectly good article on wiktionary. This appears to be nothing more than original research. Citations don't actually point anywhere so it's all unverifiable. --Ged UK (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is on a perfectly standard topic- it's about the concept of glamour, for example the glamour of the early film pioneers or the glamour of James Bond movies. It's simply about how people accessorize and present themselves. It is not a dictionary definition as per WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary as it talks about a single meaning, as with all other wikipedia articles, whereas dictionary definitions such as wiktionary:glamour describe several. It's clearly a stub, and is by no means complete. It also is, contrary to the nomination, correctly linked to reliable source reference material. It therefore does not constitute original research. This appears to be a bad faith attempt to delete this article by the nominator, it's the second time in less than a day he has attempted to delete it, and both times he has made spurious claims about the article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we're going to bring previous deletions into it, it was speedy deleted by an admin. --Ged UK (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, after you misrepresented it. Admins have been known to make mistakes.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the result is keep can the article be renamed? My first thought was "spell" (and I note that the DAB page has a red-linked Glamour (spell)). As "charm" is ambiguous, maybe "Glamour (style)" could be used instead? That said, I'm not swayed by keep right now; the one reference is to a video - if the article had more (textual) references and the violence and transport sections were expanded I might be minded to veer toward the keep-camp, but right now I'm struggling to see this as anything other than a dic-def. As this is acknowledged to be a stub I'll hold off on registering a !vote for now. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, you seem to misunderstand what a dicdef article is about (nearly everyone does). Dicdef articles are about the term; but this is about the concept of glamour, not how the term is used. A true dicdef article archetypally contains multiple definitions of a term. This is about as far from dicdef as you can get.
  To vote delete right now you would have to essentially say that there's something wrong with the article and that the article cannot be fixed.
  The other thing which is probably confusing in the title is the term 'charm'. It's a slightly unusual/archaic use of the term, it means charm as in charm bracelet. It means an article or trinket or possession. It doesn't mean attractiveness, it's an item that makes you attractive. If you look up charm in the dictionary, it's listed as one of the possible meanings.
  Unfortunately, glamour here is subtly distinct from style- style is a set of ways of doing something, and you can have schools of style, but I don't think you have schools of glamour. They're not quite synonymous.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I checked Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it mentioned nothing about multiple or singular definitions of a term. I formed my view (bearing in mind the current state of the article) because the article did not expand significantly on a dictionary definition of the term - hence my comment that the sections on violence and transport should be expanded.
    You are of course absolutely correct about the use of the word "charm"; I feel it is an ambiguous and poor choice of title. I'm familiar with the usage, but feel that a less ambiguous term would be better - precisely because it is somewhat archaic and unusual it makes a poor choice for an adjective whose purpose is to qualify and clarify.
    Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Under wiktionary- Articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote whereas wikipedia's articles are about: a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Correct. Hence my view that the article should expand the violence and transport sections - to shift the emphasis towards an examination of the concept.
        Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that style isn't quite right either. I would have preferred it without a bracketed term at all, but 99% of the use within the wikipedia is glamour magazine, and nearly all the links expect that to be at Glamour. In a very real sense the magazine has hijacked the term.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was thinking about that, and I'm inclined to agree. This is about the concept of glamour, not about a magazine or anything else that requires qualification. I'm not convinced that needing to update DAB-links should prevent us using the most appropriate article name. I'll volunteer for some DAB updating...
        Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (Aside: there are ~~about 130~~ 64 links to Glamour including talk pages; ~~I had a quick look at the first 10 or so, and most do seem to be really about Glamour (magazine). I think that that's manageable, if we needed to disambiguate the links.~~ I've DAB'd the Glamour (magazine) links; there are still a fair few Glamour (spell) links to do and there are also some references to "glamour modelling". Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 03:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment As the admin who originally deleted this, i admit that i probably did not look closely enough at the article, it was not really speedy deletable, however, as it stands the article is chaotic and a mess, going off in seemingly random directions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac16888 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-16 01:03:57
Strong Delete Article doesn't establish notability (as encyclopedic term). If someone fixes it, adds references, and rewrites it to make it encyclopedic, let me know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of this article is exactly the same sort of glamour that the early Hollywood system was promoting. Are you saying that the Hollywood glamour that was a deliberate and conscious product of that system is not encyclopedic?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And, further, are you actually claiming that the entire concept of glamour is inherently not encyclopedic? There's no other article in the wikipedia on this subject. I'm seriously asking this, because I'm kinda floored that somebody would claim that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not up to the article to "establish notability". That is not deletion policy. It is up to you to look for sources and to determine that no in-depth sources exist. An article is deletable only if, after attempts have been made to find suitable sources, none can be found. Since, as evidenced by your later comments in this very discussion, you haven't looked beyond the one source that was cited in the article, and have made no effort to look for other sources to see whether any exist, your rationale for deletion holds no water at all. You cannot possibly know whether something is non-notable or unencyclopaedic if you have made zero effort to find out. You do not help either Wikipedia or the AFD process by not looking for sources. The proper study of encyclopaedists is finding, reading, evaluating, and using sources.. Please start with the finding step. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename. Entirely unrelated to this AfD (!), I've just gone through and DAB'd "Glamour magazine" to "Glamour (magazine)" - along the way I encountered numerous wiki-links to glamour. I believe there is a genuine need for an article on the broad concept of glamour. This article (Glamour (charm)) comes closest to providing that, and should be developed further. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 04:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone actually clicked on the one reference in the article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Naturally. It was a video, and I'm on limited bandwidth so I didn't view it. I would hope that as the article is developed it would get better references (and lose this one). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 06:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article seems to be an ad for Virginia Postrel whose talk it links to and uses (repeatedly) as its only source. It also quotes her. ~~I've tagged it as spam,~~ and I think it should be deleted. ~~If someone wants to write a legitimate article on Glamour, you have my approval.~~ Is someone going to properly reference and rewirte this article?ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that this extremely stubby article is way too unglamorous to be considered an advert for Ms. Postrel, nor do I think that a non stubby version would reference a single source. I'm also amused by the way you struck out the bit in your comment where you call for someone to write a new article from scratch, but also call for its deletion, as well as its rewriting. If it's to be deleted, what's to rewrite? You really do seem pretty confused.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I struck out my comments and removed the speedy deletion tag I put on the article as a courtesy because I checked and saw that the article is new. Also several editors seem to have expressed some interest in the subject. So I thought perhaps someone had intended to add more content with references and simply hadn't gotten around to it, in which case an "under construction" tag would have been a good thing to add. But providing a single source and referencing it again and again and again and that one source being Postrel is very strange indeed. And the source is to her talk, not an article, which is in itself unusual. So I would delete it ASAP, but because of my infinite kindness I thought I'd see if people wanted to take the opportunity to fix it instead. Although there's not much there to fix as far as I can tell. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not strange at all. One editor coming along with one source, and writing based upon that source, then another editor coming along with another source, and writing more, is a normal course of article development. An article with "not much there" is called a stub. Please familiarize yourself with how articles begin and grow at Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic in the most literal sense possible. The general purpose paper encyclopedia Store norske leksikon has an entry for "glamour" (the word is the same in Norwegian as it is in English.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Further to Sjakkalle, it's also encyclopaedic in the Wikipedia-specific sense. I actually have looked for sources, that cover this subject in depth, myself, as one is supposed to do in these discussions. I found Gundle, for example, whose 3 page exposition on the subject at the start of the chapter could be used to vastly improve this article. Yes, this article is in need of cleanup. But that is the result of FUTON bias in the sources used so far, nothing more. Editing solves that. Multiple independent in-depth sources discussing the subject exist. (I'm sure that we could even track down Margaret Farrand Thorp if editors were willing to collaborate and actually lend their efforts to looking for sources.) The PNC is satisfied. Making the article better is a matter of editing and writing, not deletion. Keep Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected as suggested. No deletion required. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Gull

Non notable for its own article, suggest a redirect to Ipswich 2006 serial murders SGGH ^speak! 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then redirect it. Redirect doesn't necessarily mean delete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zrada Cultural Academy

This band fails the notability criteria for WP:MUSIC. They have made no CD recordings on any noted label. A google search] finds almost no mention outside of MySpace and FaceBook. This appears to be a local band which mostly plays at one particular pub in Winnipeg. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability in the article, as far as I can make out. the skomorokh 20:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly. It's a lovely article on an interesting subject, but notability not established. If newspaper and magazine references are added let me know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing this as a combination of SK and a dubious nomination. Kreiman is a GM ([12]). passes WP:BIO for athletes, and there's plenty of 3rd party sourcing. Black Kite 00:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Kreiman

Boris Kreiman is unnotable with only some minor news coverage from a decade ago as a Junior/teenage Chess player. As an adult Kreiman hasn't achieved any major success/press/awards. According to his highest FIDE rank, he was 2577th in the world. It appears following a 2006 controversy he is no longer a chess player and currently is a webmaster for several commerical/gambling websites. The current blog interest in him is based on Kreiman acquiring a skeptic's webpage.

He fails WP:BIO. BBiiis08 (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: It can be (and is) verified that he is a grandmaster. Does that meet any criteria as notable by itself? From the article Grandmaster (chess), Grandmaster is the highest title a chess player can attain. As for any coverage that is from the 1970s (or the 1170s), that is just as good as yesterday's news as notability isn't temporary, they key is quality not age. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in http://news.google.com/archivesearch that calls him a grandmaster. I saw a brief mention in an article 12 years ago that says "with Boris Kreiman of Brooklyn, who is as yet untitled." BBiiis08 (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to indicate he is a grand master. I was in the article before the AFD. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dennis Brown. Having once been a grandmaster means that Kreiman is definitely notable. Cunard (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That claim is unsourced. Furthermore, he has never won a championship as an adult, which would give him that title. BBiiis08 (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have that information here at wikipedia. It was in the wikilink you just deleted in the article. I also restored the other sources you deleted. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passed WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 23:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dennis Brown. X MarX the Spot (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep We got a source calling him a Grand Master. That is enough for WP:N. It is not important what the nominator thinks is sourced or not, if the reliable source states it, it is enough for WP:V. I would close this myself as speedy keep, seeing that there is unlikely to be anyone arguing what was said here but I leave this for an admin that is more experienced at AfD. Regards So Why 00:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boot Disks

Non-encyclopedic listcruft. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't quite the see the notability of an operating system that uses an obsolete drive storage technology. Also, every version of Linux can be booted from a disk, since Linux is the kernel. Anyone crafty enough can boot just about any operating system from floppy disk anyway, if you img it right. Oh, and almost all older consumer type OS's will since that was the only way to install it, or that was the only disk storage on the device. Now we can argue if it only counts if it was issued as floppies like Windows 95 was initially (but not 95b), or if it can be hacked to boot on floppies like Windows 98, but only if this can be sourced, except the problem is the sources are forums and blogs, but to be fair that is how techincal stuff is figured out, and holy cow, I already need a tylenol. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a bunch of listcruft. Each OS that has a boot disk should have information about the boot disk on its own page, but this is simply listcruft _David ^WS _(contribs) 21:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much any OS is bootable from disk. I simply don't see the use of a list like this one. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 23:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Workspace Macro

Written like an advertisement, COI article creator, non-notable software.... _David ^WS _(contribs) 20:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a PC World review, but the review is short and there aren't any other reviews, so this fails WP:N. No further sources could be found, although Google Book search was quite amusing for coming up with information on Workspace Macros for Microsoft Office applications. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The template on the article is a redlink, that leads to the edit page of the AfD instead of the actual AfD. So it should probably be fixed.
Delete Product description/ eadvertisement doesn't establish any notability for this product. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see sufficient notability, PCWorld, NewYorkTimes,WindowsDevCenter.Timkay20

Comment. If you link the articles, I may be inclined to change my vote. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Articles are linked now. Timkay20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.227.61 (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, it has some "notable" references... something hard to get for a piece of software SF007 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minicalc

I do not believe Minicalc passes our notability guidelines. While many searches show up for Minicalc, it seems only a handful of sites list this specific widget. I can't find any reliable sources that point to notability. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Owen× ☎ 19:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just a small piece of non-notable freeware... _David ^WS _(contribs) 20:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable freeware. Questionable number of downloads (80.000 in website 1 and 77 in website 2!!!). No third party sources or notable awards. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in current light, and somehow, I'm a little bit sceptical on whether the notability would arrive in the future, either, or information in independent sources. No offence intended for the author of this fine application, but I somehow don't see journalists or scientists get terribly enthusiastic about a simple calculator application. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - absolutely non-notable advertising. - DustyRain (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there anythig to stay that hasn't been said? YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journal For Plague Lovers

Violation of WP:CRYSTAL; doesn't meet notability for future albums, in that there are no reliable sources stating anything substantial about this upcoming album. Even the title is noted as a "working title" in some sources I found. Prod was contested, so I'm bringing it here. Raven1977 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it ever gets released, it can be recreated. As per WP:CRYSTAL stated above. --Kickstart70TC 19:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I redirected the page to Manic Street Preachers article because of insufficient info for standalone article. The info is already on the Manic Street Preachers article.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think we should be doing any re-directing or anything for that matter, until the discussion here has had time to play out. I've undone the redirect until there's better consensus. That being said, I have nothing against a re-direct if the consensus here is that the topic right now doesn't deserve its own article. Raven1977 (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very sorry for the humiliating mistake of blanking the page. I didn't read the part with don't blank. Anyway I think we should redirect as the page won't stand on it's feet until 2009.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established (yet). ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands; fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. If any reliable sources can be found, merge. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony}

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chico's (restaurant)

Fails notability requirement (also a test of Wikipedia:Notability (restaurants) proposed guideline. --Kickstart70TC 19:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It deserves it's own article just like any other Burger place. Not many people know what Burger Chef is yet it has it's own article with a lot of information because people of a certain region know what it is.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err....not every burger place has enough notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. That much is very clear. Notability must be established within policy and accepted guidelines (WP:N)--Kickstart70TC 19:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A company's notability doesn't depend on what it sells: burger places are no more notable than any other companies. As this doesn't pass notability criteria, it should be deleted regardless of its products. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "test" reference in the nom is a bit troubling, but the article doesn't establish notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable restaurant. I've done a variety of searches across Google, Google Books, and Google News, but have been unable to find significant coverage about this restaurant. I did find this source and this source from travel books. In both sources, Chico's is given only a trivial mention. I cannot find any notable awards that this article has received. Even a Google search with the Finnish name for this restaurant returns only results from its website or forums. This should definitely be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETED as a copyright violation. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Miracle Mile

"Reviewed by Terry South for Quality Book Reviews/ Maryville, TN" says it all. That and it sounds like a kid's book report. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADVERT, WP:NOTOR, WP:NOTWEBHOST and (possibly WP:COI) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copy vio. Tagged as such. --Ged UK (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wal-Mart. So Why 23:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart Knowledge Management

Essay-like; borders on OR, and probably doesn't merit an article by itself. KurtRaschke (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, move to Walmart customer capital management. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article should be merged with Wal-Mart as it includes a significant amount of detail and has many ciatons. The info is already in a section so the merging would be easy. I figure the user didn't know how to put it on Wal-Mart so he left it for us to merge it to there. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per reasonable outcome base on article's inability to stand alone. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Leopard. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard in Pakistan

Obvious original research. Good try, but does not meet our standards. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Leopard --Ged UK (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Leopard or Animals of Pakistan. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can one merge an article into a nonexistent article? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it was non-existent when I wrote the message. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preview is your friend ;) --Ged UK (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Show preview :-) Best, Ev (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW where would a person go on WP with the question, "What sort of wild animals live in Pakistan?" Steve Dufour (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is odd, is there no country specific animal lists?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is "Fauna of Pakistan" (currently listing zero references), part of the "Fauna of..." series. Redirect from "Animals of Pakistan" created. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "Wildlife of Pakistan" also exists (as part of the "Wildlife of..." series). - Ev (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Ev (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fauna of Pakistan (aka Animals of Pakistan). Per one unsourced article that's more complete is better than two unsourced messes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, or more precisely don't delete. As always, editors can discuss merging or redirecting on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiser's Small Batch

No indication why this is notable. I can't find any references in reliable sources that this whisky is any more notable than thousands of others.

Merge has been suggested, but frankly, the article suggested (Wiser's Reserve is at least as equal a candidate for deletion. --Ged UK (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability isn't a relative contest, it's an absolute. If something has the requisite coverage for Notability, it doesn't matter if it's unique or one of thousands of like items. Article now has two RS references, one for a review of the product, one for a specific batch for a commemorative version, covered by CBC. That it's not really a very special whisky doesn't make it non-notable, IMO. PS I'm the one wanting the merge. MadScot (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability isn't established by providing $x number of sources either, but by the strength of the sources. That said, many of us think that two strong sources is a good tipping point. In this case, the sources are a bit weak. So I fixed it a bit. The one cite that I just added should be strong enough to establish notability, as it shows they won International Review of Spirits Award: Gold Medal, and were reviewed by Tastings and given a 92 (exceptional) rating. Keep based on this new information. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Notable. Certainly a case to be made for a combined article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that there's much need for separate articles about each individual brand of whisky that this distillery makes, but I'm willing to bet that an article about the distillery itself, with individual products redirected to it, would be perfectly valid and more easily sourceable. Merge and redirect. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland (Home Nation)

Renominating. Article remains an almost verbatim duplicate (and therefore a totally redundant fork to ) the existing "Ireland 1801–1922" article. Further, the term "the Home Nation of Ireland" significantly fails WP:COMMONNAME - Having absolutely no common usage beyond this article. Guliolopez (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Are you saying there never was a Home Nation of the UK called Ireland? MickMacNee (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Absolutely not. What I'm saying is that there is already an article which covers the period when Ireland was a home nation of the UK. And it's at "Ireland 1801–1922". The article Ireland (Home Nation) should therefore be deleted as a content fork (or merged and redirected if there is anything worth merging back). My comment on the OR/naming issue is that the article makes use of the term "the Home Nation of Ireland" as if it has some kind of precedent or common use history. Which it doesn't really. (Take for example the assertion that the St. Patrick's Saltire is the "flag of the Home Nation of Ireland", as if "the Home Nation of Ireland" was somehow the commonname for the constituent country for the period. When - really - it was just "Ireland"). Anyway, perhaps I confused the nom by making reference to naming issues - the simple fact is that Ireland 1801–1922 already deals with the concept fully, and this article is a pointless "copy and paste" job. Guliolopez (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This article is an almost identical copy of the Ireland 1801-1922 article. The term "Ireland (Home Nation)" seems unique to Wikipedia. doktorb _words^deeds 20:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: redundant, per nom. Having survived AfD, there was an opportunity to expand it if there was anything new or useful to say. That has not happened. Scolaire (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guliolopez. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per redundant to existing article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Guliolopez, completely redundant. --HighKing (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Piteşti#Education. So Why 23:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School no. 11 Mihai Eminescu

Despite the grand claims made by the author of this being "the most important school in Pitesti" (actually Piteşti), there's no evidence that this is anything but a run-of-the-mill elementary school. Moreover, one of its alumni is a redlink and the other an admittedly impressive mathematician, but not one so important as to confer notability on the school he attended as a boy. (Note, if you will, the conspicuous absence of articles about the elementary schools of, say, Mihai Eminescu, Ion Antonescu, Mircea Eliade, Constantin Brâncuşi, Nadia Comăneci, Nicolae Ceauşescu, Nicolae Iorga, Lucian Blaga, and other truly important Romanians.) So given that, absent evidence, this is not an "important" school, and that its alumni do not make it so, the article should be deleted. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not much else to say, really. ~~SIS~~ 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Piteşti#Education per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per TerriersFan. Just a school. Matt Deres (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquasermo

Implicitly contested prod. Article about a rather expensive gizmo meant to be used for advertizing, but with little or no actual usage asserted. The promised sources turned out to be primary, that is, associated with the subject. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of this product has been added. Gstsqs (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Funny, the only non-third party source available, the BBC news link, was a dead link. No third-party sources found, so fails WP:N. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 23:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASCO Properties

Nothing but a promotional advertisement with only link to the group's website. No suggestion of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Speedy had already been declined. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem notable. Res 2216 firestar 23:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Granted, I'm not savvy to all the in's and out's of Wikipedia, NASCO Properties employs a unique model for preserving cooperative housing - a model which is being considered in Canada to preserve a large share of their affordable housing stock. Since I don't know how to connect this article to others within Wikipedia and how to cite all the references I have, it may appear that this article is not worth of inclusion, but I tend to disagree. If by "notability" this discussion is trying to determine whether this article is distinct or unique, I would assert that no other cooperative organization uses this structure of a federated land trust to preserve long term affordability for housing. This is notable both within the cooperative sector, and within the realm of community economic development. Tom.pierson

The way to demonstrate notability is to include references. Look up wp: references in the search box and it will explain how to do citations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find third-party sources stating that indeed the NASCO model is considered by other organizations (and that it did indeed originate at NASCO, which we need to be able to verify), then there's a chance the article may be kept. Primary sources are inadequate for establishing notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so by definition it is a tertiary source, so you need to find secondary sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all except Center for Advanced Defense Studies, for which there seems to be no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Howard

Walled garden built around Newton Howard and his activities. Neither Howard himself nor his institutions garner anything more than trivial google hits (most of those being press releases). Howard himself, I believe, fails the tests at WP:PROF, as most of his writings are published by his own think tank. Recommend Delete All Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 20:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding:

List of dodgeball variations

User:Dendodge/AfDlinks

This seems rather pointless - not to mention unverifiable and non-notable. We'll get every schoolboy and his dog lining up to add their new ideas. We're just opening ourselves up for WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#MADEUP violations here. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. --neon white talk 17:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons above, plus the article has no references so is pretty much pure original research. This will just be a page for everyone to list their own personal variant on dodgeball. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep. The complete lack of any kind of sources in the article is worrying, quite likely a large portion of that list is made up? If any kind of reasonable sources can be later found then please strike out my vote, although the article would still need to be heavily pruned, but otherwise it must be deleted. Mathmo ^Talk 01:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep due to childofmidnight, big kudos to him for finding the sources I didn't come across before. Mathmo ^Talk 01:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are, of course, good sources for this peer reviewed article. The table of contents of The Complete Book About Dodgeball by Andy Keyes http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1420875485/ref=sib_dp_bod_toc?ie=UTF8&p=S00A#reader-link lists 15 or so variations of the game. Variations are also listed by the International Dodgeball Federation rule book (starting on page 34) http://www.dodge-ball.com/site/DodgeBall Rule Book.pdf and I'm sure other organizations, and other organizations in other countries, also maintain official documentations of variations. So clearly much of the material in this article can be sourced and is not original research. This article was split off from the dodgeball article, and while both need improvements and additional references, deletion is not a good option. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources include YMCA School Playground Partners: Dodgeball Gamges which details the rules and game play of some of the well established variations. http://ecke.ymca.org/docs/playgroundpartners/dodgeballgames.pdf and there's also Dynamite Dodgeball, by Jo Brewer which discusses some of the dodgeball games commonly played. So let's fix this article instead of deleting it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ChildofMidnight provides excellent sources that none of us likely knew existed. The basic suject matter has inspired movies, mad moms and nightmares for uncoordinated children the world over. The fact that this *is* an organized sport surely demonstrates a list is in order. I understand the initial doubts, but sources already existed in the main article this page is subbed off of:
National Dodgeball League, directions for member clubs, and leagues in the United States.
National Amateur Dodgeball Association
National College Dodgeball Association

DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on my previous keep' The more I look at this, the more it makes sense to keep. There are other articles that are subbed from here, everything can be sourced (or removed otherwise) and this IS a real sport. I removed some unneeded tags, including an old merge. This is a textbook example of why WP:DEADLINE exists. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it can be FULLY sourced and still remain viable, remove all unsourceable information. Mfield (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use this resource on a weekly basis for kids programming! Please keep this!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.171.45 (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add the specific sources for each paragraph since the material is apparently being challenged. But we do not require full inline sourcing of an article as a precondition to keeping it.DGG (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant but badly phrased maybe - remove the bits that cannot be sourced and keep the rest, rather than delete it because it can't all be sourced. Mfield (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Unless someone can add those references mentioned, Nom and supporters are irrefutable. Let's hold off on deletion, let editors with access to the sources add them, and clear what we can't source (I will be happy to help with cleaning the article). If this is not done, though, I fear I would have to support a future AfD. Tealwisp (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the crap out of it. I only split it off the main dodgeball article because too many people whined that it belonged. fethers (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you have created this article two years ago if you think it should be deleted? Sincerely puzzled by this. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability and verifiability. Violates WP:NOR and WP:NOT as stated in the summary. User:ChildofMidnight found sources for 3 of the variants. Give them a passing mention in the main Dodgeball article and get rid of all the vaguely remembered childhood games. -- Intractable (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion, that is. Merging or cleaning up the articles about the drink and/or the powder (which do appear to be different things altogether) may be necessary, but may be accomplished outside of AfD. Sandstein 19:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbet (powder)

Is this really food? No sources were given. Alexius08 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is (the beginning of) a translation from dewiki. I've added one source. --Obersachse (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why start a whole new article when we already have Sherbet, which according to its ingredients section is discussing this very thing? Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close Improper nomination with no reason for deletion given. --neon white talk 17:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Sherbet article already covers this topic.--Michig (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sherbet. Doesn't really "stand up" on its own as an article. Proxy User (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge with Sherbet, as that page covers this topic. _David ^WS _(contribs) 20:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Sherbet article is about a traditional turkish cold drink "prepared with rose hips, cornelian cherries, rose or licorice and a variety of spices." This article is about the sherbet or soda powder. Compare the interwikis, please. --Obersachse (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first section of Sherbet is about the drink. Most of the article is about the powder.--Michig (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's split the article. One about the traditional drink, the other one about the powder. That way the interwikis became correct. It's very strange, when a article about the powder in one language links to an article about a traditional drink in another language. And vice versa. --Obersachse (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the best approach as the drink and the powder don't seem to be related, so I think this should be a Keep, although which of the two articles belongs at Sherbet, I'm not sure. Most of the content in Sherbet is about the powder, so I would be inclined to leave that there and move the content about the drink to Sherbet (drink) or Sherbet (beverage).--Michig (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it should be renamed Sherbet powder rather than having an unecessary disambiguation term. --neon white talk 21:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Splitting the sherbet article and keeping two articles seems the most reasonable choice, assuming that both subjects are considered notable. The traditional Turkish drink and the fizzy powder do not appear to be closely related except by name and should not be treated in the same article. --Itub (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Doesn't need it's own article. Can fit quite nicely in the Sherbet article. The muffin is not subtle (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the interwikis? Should they led to the powder or the turkish drink? --Obersachse (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain. Sherbet (powder) links to de:Brausepulver. Both of them are about the powder, and only. Sherbet links e.g. to ru:Шербет or bs:Šerbe. They are about the turkish drink, not a single word about the powder. Is this clear enough, to see, that merging the articles will lead to interwikiconflicts? --Obersachse (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fix and/or rename both articles. Sherbet powder has nothing to do with a Turkish rose petal drink. Most of the current content of Sherbet describes sherbet powder. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerri Peev

This is an article about a person only known for one incident. The article discusses the incident in a fair, neutral manner but has very little information on Mr. Peev himself. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, I believe it is M(r)s. Peev. Further, sources are quite numerous and she writes a good amount of articles. While biographical information IS important, she has made a contribution that allows her to squeak by WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All but the first 3 are articles by Peev, not about her. BTW the newspaper she works for, The Scotsman, only has a circulation of about 50,000.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some sources in the article that are about her and just by her, but more importantly, searching shows more sources that can be worked in. I think she slides by notability, even if barely. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG!

Browserbased game with no assertion of notability. Relies entirely on selfpublished sources. The article lacks coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the game or its creator, Gaia Online. So, delete per WP:WEB. Keep in mind before commenting that I'm talking about a browserbased game here, not the term ZOMG. Google is way off here if you just search for that term before commenting. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right. Some of us know how to drive Google:
- Errol Pierre-Louis (2008-11-06). "GAIA Online Launches "zOMG!" Casual MMO Game". AppScout. Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc.
- Christophor Rick (2008-11-06). "zOMG! It's Open Beta". Gamers Daily News. GDN Media Worldwide LLC.
- William Usher (2008-10-22). "Gaia Online zOMG Open Beta Starting Soon". Cinema Blend. Cinema Blend LLC.
Uncle G (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Gaia Online which pretty much already covers this subject. Doesnt appear to be notable in it's own right and all info appears to be self-sourced. --neon white talk 17:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and cleanup, preferably with a chainsaw. Verifiable MMO game, but is also borderline speedy for G11 (very spammish). If it can be cleaned up veraciously, it would certainly earn a boldface keep from me. MuZemike (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but how does it establish notability? --neon white talk 00:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - three press releases are not enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. Marasmusine (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gaia Online. The press released found are only indications of temporary news coverage but not long term notability. --MASEM 05:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OMG if deleted or merged, the game is not primary meaning, ZOMG is. 76.66.198.46 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fine with a merge/redirect so if the closer chooses that then I'm okay with that. I know how to "drive Google" but I also know the difference between a reprint of a press release and independent coverage. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It's notable as the planned expansion of Gaia Online, yet not suitable for merging into it, as gameplay so different, it would make the combined article as mess. Yes, multiple sources are skimpy for this, but that is to be expected for a game in beta; this should improve very soon. If not, it can be deleted in a few weeks; no need to be hasty about something that's breaking news. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently in the gaia article that is why merging makes sense. We do not base notability on what may or may not become available in the future. see WP:CBALL. Wikipedia is'nt a news source. --neon white talk 21:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self sourced and spammy. Requires major cleanup. Facts are unreferenced. Non notable beta release game, as per WP:N this should be deleted and recreated when the game achieves such. - DustyRain (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Brady (broadcaster)

Moving to AFD after speedy delete was contested. This article as previously deleted after an AFD. Article still lacks reliable 3rd party references and fails to establish the notability of this broadcaster (being a fan of a particular NFL team does not make you notable). Rtphokie (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever can be cited to The Bill Watters Show and redirect the page to that article as well. Raven1977 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Secondary sources not provided which show notability. (The result is an uninteresting article. It just says that Mr. Brady talks on the radio and likes sports.) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (If that is the right term). A quick perusal on Wikipedia comes up with dozens of actors, radio hosts and sports people who 'just' act, talk on the radio and play sports. Seems to me that although they lack a breadth to their resume, they are perfectly valid for inclusion on this site - and so should Greg Brady be, who is a well known radio host and commentator in his own right. The BBC and AM640 sources are hardly unreliable! --78.105.249.166 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason to retain an article.
Keep I have added Secondary sources for this broadcaster. It was probably correct to previously delete this article when there were no secondary sources (although there were only two votes cast!) It is hard to Google for him because he shares the same name as a character from The Brady Bunch! Anyway, I submit that he is now sufficiently well-referenced to satisfy the notability guidelines. He is a broadcaster in three countries, and a commentator for the BBC on the Superbowl. Singinglemon (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a good, well sourced article on a person who is well within WP notability criteria. LukeSurl^{t c} 01:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment References have been significantly improved (thanks for that) but the article still doesn't establish why this person is notable. No indication of any awards or any unique contribution to broadcasting. Guidance provided by Wikipedia:Notability (people) says that articles failing this additional criteria should be merged into an appropriate article. Raven1977's suggestion that this article be merged into The Bill Watters Show seems like a good one.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that's taking an unduly harsh view. I understand that this page has been deleted once before, and there is a desire, therefore, to be rigorous about this, but Wikipedia is absolutly filled with celebrities of lesser significance. Just looking at Category:Canadian radio sportscasters for example, (eg. Dennis Beyak, Robin Brown, Vincent Cauchon, Al Coates, etc.) - if the only criteria really were "awards or any unique contribution" then we would have to delete thousands of radio broadcasters alone. Greg Brady's notability is that he has been a presenter on at least three different Radio stations, and as some of the references point out, he well-known to listeners of BBC Radio 5, a station which has national coverage in the UK. Singinglemon (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment awards and contributions aren't the only criteria, those are examples of content that would show notability here. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and WP:OTHERSTUFF. The focus needs to be on this article and whether or not it's notable. If those others lack notability, they can be discussed later.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I certainly agree that awards and contributions aren't the only criteria for inclusion; a more realistic criterion would be (WP:ENTERTAINER) that an entertainer should have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." Basically, he's notable for having significant, varying "roles" in many radio productions. I'm not saying he's the world's most famous broadcaster, all I'm saying is that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, he passes under a moderate interpretation of the guidelines for Notability. Singinglemon (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Singinglemon. I'm in the UK so I don't know what programmes Greg Brady has done in the USA and Canada but I believe he is sufficiently well-known from his work on the BBC. I have heard him on BBC radio many times (as recently as yesterday). I also agree with LukeSurl, that the article appears informative and well referenced. Dommar (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually used Wikipedia to find out about him after hearing him on the radio. That's what this place is for. Matt lobster (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know of Greg through his appearances on BBC radio, and as a Canadian, I know of his radio show in Toronto. He is sufficiently well known to deserve an article. blaggers (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is probably the most regular pundit on one of BBCs top sports programme and Britain's No 1 sports podcast "Fighting Talk". The poor quality of the wikipedia article is not justification for deleteing it. Out of the 15 pundits listed on the Fighting Talk entry he is the only one threated with deletion but has probably appeared on the show the most times. dazzammm (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His Wikipedia entry cites many sources that validate his notability. There is no logical reason to delete this entry. Frellmedead (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was neutral on the first AfD, but this version is much better sourced. - fchd (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Tweddle

WP:NN filmmaker, fails WP:BIO. Appears to be a promotional autobiography. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for sources turned up little more than his films having been shown as part of several film festivals around the world. I couldn't find any significant coverage of Tweddle himself, or significant coverage of his films, which would be a requirement if the article is to stay.--Michig (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion. Started by subject. Non-notable. Proxy User (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Mich. Schuym1 (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find much in the way of sourcing either. Note to closing admin: make sure to nuke the articles about Tweddle's films as well. GlassCobra 13:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If his documemtaries are award winning, that does not mean they nor the filmmaker are non-notabe. The article should be sandblasted to remove POV and be properly sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been able to dig up just one award that doesn't appear to be noteworthy in anyway, but I'm not an expert in film festivals, so I'm open to be convinced. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as hoax, block creator as hoaxer. DS (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollac

The article appears to be a WP:HOAX. An extensive search of the internet finds no use of the term "rollac" in the context of clothing. Also none of the other terminology in the article - lutter and nim -- can be found either. A question at the WP reference desk determined the word does not appear in the second-edition OED. I have been unable to locate the sourced book The History of the Rollac. Without any clear references, I suspect the article may be a hoax by the SPA creator. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:V. If Gwen Owens's History of the Rollac exists, WorldCat has no knowledge of it. This has to be cosidered a hoax unless some reliable sources containing information about this item can be shown to exist. Deor (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an apparent hoax. It's the responsibility of the creator of the article to provide verifiable sources, and none of the mentioned references seem to be accessible or support the article's content. ~ mazca ^t|c 15:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If the page creator would like the text of the page, perhaps to transfer to a more suitable wiki, feel free to ask me or any other admin, and we would be happy to retrieve it for you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wesnoth AI

Ref list for programmers of the Wesnoth game. I think. Not an encyclopedic article by any definition and something that belongs on the game's sourceforge (or similar) pages. Delete. ~~SIS~~ 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for heavy use of jargon and conflict of interest. Note that the page was created by Wesnoth ai. Alexius08 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An an avid Wesnoth fan, either Delete or Redirect to Wesnoth. I don't think this is a conflict of interest as such, more likely someone who's misunderstood the difference between the Wesnoth wiki and Wikipedia. Anyway, it's already on the Wesnoth wiki (which is where this belongs), so we're not losing anything. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what my prod wasn't enough? :) The redirect is unlikely IMO --Blowdart | ^talk 16:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Raven1977 (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't an instruction manual for coders of a particular game. Randomran (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - COI per Randomran _David ^WS _(contribs) 17:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useful but it should be put elsewhere not in wikipedia. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — nothing but a now-to guide, which is not what Wikipedia is about. MuZemike (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a general encyclopedia. Marasmusine (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based music

Alleged music genre "claimed to be" created by vaguely notable band with practically nothing but primary sources. Black Kite 13:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable or verifiable, a neologism at best. Made up genres are usually deleted. --neon white talk 17:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is there a Fill-in-the-wikipedian's-name-here Law concerning new musical genres or subgenres? It seems to be similar in predictability to Ten Pound Hammer's and Geogre's Law. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A made up genre. Schuym1 (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uni5

Non-notable, "rumored" title of an unreleased album. Sole reference is a forum posting. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nomination. Possibly OK for an article if a reliable source emerges. I-hunter (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is it WP:HAMMER this breaks? Or broke by HAMMER? Anyway, yeah, fails policy on Music and crystal balling doktorb _words^deeds 13:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 19:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hammertime!!! — it might has well be Bone Thugs n Harmony's nth album, because that's what it basically is, judging from the content. This is a date with destiny with the crystal hammer. MuZemike (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks MuZemike, I knew I half-remembered the term =) doktorb _words^deeds 20:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Catanzariti

Delete. Political staffer, non-notable under WP:POLITICIAN and every other test. WWGB (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable under WP:POLITICIAN with WP:COATRACK issues. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn per above.--Sting Buzz Me... 13:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and implied interference with police investigation is possibly libelous.--Grahame (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Merge and delete - WP:POLITICIAN applies to elected officials, which item is relevant? WP:BLP requires cleanup and Coat-rack is an essay - neither give a rationale for deletion. He is noted in National newspapers, not in a trivial way, so how is he nn? My quick search also revealed this Hansard 4 December 1997: which contains a fact not noted in the article. .. who will have egg on their faces when this whole matter has been examined by independent people. I am now requested to go to the privileges committee, which has hired two lawyers: Mr Bernard Gross, QC, and Mr Peter Catanzariti from the small firm called Clayton Utz to assist Mr Gross. - Franca Arena. cygnis insignis 01:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, what Arena meant to say, and what the final report confirms, is that the lawyer was in fact Joe Catanzariti. All of which has nothing to do with Peter Catanzariti, who remains non-notable under WP:PEOPLE. I guess Arena was having another "senior moment". WWGB (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. I could contend that Arena confused two notable people, at least known to her, but would prefer to keep it simple. By what criteria of PEOPLE, if you agree the POLITICIAN sect is irrelevant, he is mentioned in (somewhat) reliable secondary sources in a non-trivial way. cygnis insignis 06:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than this reference where else is Catanzariti mentioned in a significant citation? This is just WP:ONEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find one; unless they can be found the information should be merged to relevant articles, then the article deleted. If a reader is confused by the multiple or erroneously cited Catanzaritis, they can find this name in the context of the apparent ONEEVENT. cygnis insignis 08:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article seems to be a reporting of a saga. more like WP:NOT#NEWS. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable political staffer. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this and see that you have a lot of rules ect, but this person is very significant in QLD Politics on a federal level, I only have interview transcripts and my own experiances to go off so far, but the event referenced lead to the downfall of Gary Hardgrave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfranklin80 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Stockton South (UK Parliament constituency). Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Wharton

James Wharton is a recently selected, but by no other means notable, candidate at a future UK general election. The article reads like a CV, possibly copied from his personal site. It fails policy on notability and political candidates. doktorb _words^deeds 10:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stockton South (UK Parliament constituency). Common practice that being a Parliamentary candidate does not qualify as notable. (Of course, if he gets elected in 2009/2010, everything changes). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Per WP:POLITICIAN, being a candidate doesn't qualify him; nor does being the chair of a local Conservative Party. The only news items I can find ([15]) mention him in passing, criticising the Labour MP in his constituency. Doesn't count as significant coverage. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect of course if he gets elected he qualifies, until then in the lack of third party sources he doesn't meet wp:bio for politicians. Valenciano (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Stockton South (UK Parliament constituency). Fails WP:BIO. TerriersFan (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No need to relist this, Black Kite 14:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe and Mildred Tabootie

Completely fails WP:N and WP:RS. No sources at all, no citations either. Not stub worthy. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ChalkZone after Delete. No need to relist. Black Kite 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craniac

Non notable set of creatures. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. No sources are given at all. Same with citations. This is completely written to the universe of ChalkZone. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect to ChalkZone. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article provides no evidence of notability for its subject matter, the content of the article is all plot summary, and its source is clearly original research. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 14:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horace T. Wilter

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Completely non notable. No sources at all. No citations given. No evidence of notability. Not important outside of ChalkZone. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. RayAYang (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ChalkZone. Black Kite 14:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Tabootie

Completely fails WP:N and WP:RS. There are no sources or citations. This article is completely non notable outside of the ChalkZone universe. No claims of notability. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No out-of-universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chalkzone. —Ceran (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No need to re-list this. Black Kite 14:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snap (ChalkZone)

This was nominated in February, but the result was never really taken care of. First off, this fails WP:N and WP:RS. There are NO sources or any references at all. That being said, this article is full of original research. It is not notable outside of the ChalkZone universe at all. It is not the subject of multiple third party sources. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even worth merging. No out of universe info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculously useless as an article. No citations, no notability whatsoever, and if anything, needs part of the article to be merged in the original show page. Also, nominate all the articles of characters of that show for deletion as they are ridiculously useless. Cyanidethistles {Tim C} 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It isn't worth keeping as a redirect to ChalkZone. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kirby Superstar . MBisanz ^talk 13:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy lobster

No significance in the real world. Punkmorten (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source or claim to notability outside Kirby game/universe, WP:FICT.--Boffob (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate list of Kirby characters. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - barely worth mentioning, even in the parent article. Redirect to Homarus americanus, those suckers are huge! Marasmusine (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambiguous phrases like this shouldn't be redirected to articles unless they're used as an actual name for that subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, I didn't make it clear that I was joking. Of course you're right. Marasmusine (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - put it in a list of characters in a Kirby game _David ^WS _(contribs) 15:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2WOW

non-notable radio station. All sources are either primary, or incidental to the subject, and no other sources found. Tagged for notability concerns for over 3 months without improvement Mayalld (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legally licensed radio station with more than just a primary source. That no one is working on it, nor that $x time has passed according to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It is a reason to improve. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first source is primary, the second self-published, and the third really doesn't go into much detail about the station, focusing instead on its founder. I don't know what the precedent is on whether being a 'legally licensed radio station' confers notability, but I'd be inclined to say delete since we have no (or at best only one) significant coverage in a reliable source. If anyone has more luck that Mayalld and me in finding sources or previous consensus I'll be happy to reconsider. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per my note below, licensed stations are usually considered defacto notable, and independent sources are only required to verify any claim "most popular" etc. Primary only sources are considered ok for defacto notable articles to establish their existance, although it is always better with more sources. At least the AFDs I have seen on radio stations supports this. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then of course keep instead. Thanks Dennis. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being licensed isnt a criteria for notability. The lack of any second or thrid party sources deems this non-notable. --neon white talk 17:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as government licensed broadcast radio stations are notable per countless precedents and the "broadcast media" section of WP:NME which argues that most broadcasters are part of the local infrastructure and geography, in a way that other sorts of businesses are not. - Dravecky (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum And I've also expanded the article and included several references from reliable third-party sources. I'm about as far from Australia as you can get so perhaps somebody a bit closer will have access to still more applicable sources. - Dravecky (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Every AFD I have seen on radio stations have always said the same, that a station that is legally licensed by a government is defacto notable and sources are required to verify any claims, but NOT to establish notability. Pirate stations or unlicensed require additional proof of notability like any other article. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every article is required to meet basic criteria for notability. THere are no exemptions. --neon white talk 00:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of your source. Wikipedia:Notability_(TV_and_radio_stations) was abandoned since it was too US centric. At that time, the consensus was that radio stations at the college level and higher automatically met criteria diff. Even now that seems to be the case, see List of campus radio stations. As I have stated, there appears to exist a consensus that all licensed stations meet criteria, pirate and small unlicenced stations must meet wp:GNG standards. Of course we want to verify they exist and add sources where we can, but they are considered automatically notable. Same with network TV stations, high schools, and all kinds of other classes of organizations. I just got through an AFD on a Grandmaster chess player, where again, all you have to do is demonstrate that the claim of Grandmaster is valid itself. That alone is "notable". Same here, being a licenced radio station is "notable" by itself. If you can show me a guideline or policy that says this isn't the case, I would be happy to look at it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dennis Brown and Dravecky. The improvements Dravecky made to the article are enough to establish this radio station's notability. If that's not enough, there are plenty of reliable sources about this radio station as seen in this Google News Archive search. Cunard (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the support is appreciated but so as not to accidentally mislead anybody I feel obligated to point out that some of the "Wow FM" hits found by the Google News are for a station (possibly defunct) in Malaysia. - Dravecky (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment WP:NME is not a policy and therefore no points made based on this should be considered valid. The subject must meet the standards at WP:N. There are currently no sources in the article that i would consider reliable second party sources. --neon white talk 00:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I was about to ask "didn't you see all those third-party references I added to the article?" but I now see that you did and that you deleted them from the article. I always try to assume good faith but please consider that assumption under review at the moment. - Dravecky (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be verifiable. If you just cite a publication without page numbers and quotes, it's not verifiable. It's policy that users should be able to check information. --neon white talk 17:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a source without page numbers and quotes doesn't make the information unverifiable. It maye be more difficult to verify, but removing the source altogether makes verification even more difficult. DHowell (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - WP:N isn't a policy either, it is simply a guideline. And everyone is free to discuss based on WP:NME, any other essay, policy, guideline or lackthereof. You are free to disagree with those arguments. My contention is that certain organization are notable if they have exactly zero sources. This includes universities, incorporated cities, licenced TV and radio stations and similar. The consensus in previous AFDs seem to agree. I have no issue with you arguing against the consensus, and of course, you are free to use any policy or guideline, or simply WP:IAR if you choose in those arguments, just like everyone else. I understand your point, but in this circumstance, you are simply mistaken. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As personal essays have no community consensus they cannot be used as the basis for deletion. --neon white talk 17:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but as Dennis is not arguing for deletion, what is your point? DHowell (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unrelated to afd If the article is kept it need to be moved to Wow FM as this appears to be the subject of the article and the subject which is outlines in the lead paragraph. --neon white talk 00:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, it would need to stay 2WOW as that is their call letters, per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Broadcasting. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree the subject of the article is the radio station not their call sign. Articles should be titled using the most common term for the subject and i think this afd has proven that 2WOW is not commonly used. All the sources, including the radio station itself always refer to WOW FM and never 2WOW, to title it as that is confusing as it is incredible unlikely to be searched for as that title. With all guidelines and policies there are always exceptions based on common sense. As there is no article at the title Wow FM, it's logical to move it or at least have a disambiguation page there to aid navigation. --neon white talk 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the sources do refer to the callsign as well as the branding but in any case, as "Wow FM" at best this would need to be redirected from a disambiguation page. Given the article for Wow FM 103.5 and the several "Wow FM"-branded stations in the US that a Google search turns up, the article is better served at 2WOW than at "Wow FM (Australia)" or some other disambiguation scheme. - Dravecky (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Indeed, this highlighted the need for exactly such a disambiguation page as an aid to navigation so I have created it at WOW FM and populated it with at least five of the stations to which is applies. - Dravecky (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We're up to ten references now. I'd like to see a little more information in the infobox.. wattage, etc, but article is shaping up. NME may be only an essay, but it is appropriate to link to in AFDs if only to avoid explaining broadcast markets in every single AFD. Radio stations are part of the local infrastructure and geography, so we try to cover them consistently, just like we cover high schools, public utilities, railroads, etc. It's just basic intelligence about a locale; look at the CIA World Factbook some time. Even in a two-page summary about a country, they take note of the broadcasters. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not disagreeing with keeping the article in this instance, and not dismissing NME as having helpful elements. However, I do disagree strongly with the notion of licensed stations having inherent notability and here is an example where such an argument was totally inappropriate and thankfully proved spurious. Murtoa (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That example was at 1611, off the dial and a narrow band station (not the same thing at all). Most I know agree that a full power station, on the dial, that is legally licensed by a recognized country, is defacto notable. It appears this article has other issues that offended someone, and some of the rationals by editors in your example were simply mistaken. Gene93ksummed it up best in that example. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 12:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, the 3XX article failed at AfD precisely because there was no proof available that it was a licensed broadcast radio station. Several of the folks who positively referenced the notability of licensed radio stations also !voted "delete" in that discussion because that did not apply to apparently unlicensed 3XX. - Dravecky (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Appreciate the above comments and recognise 3XX had additional issues. I would only add however that the lack of licensing proof as reason for the failed AfD is a presumption only, since no reason was actually provided in its determination. Murtoa (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Licensed broadcast stations are notable precisely because experience shows that there is nearly always reliable source coverage to be found for them (even if it sometimes difficult to find on the net). And in this case such coverage has indeed been found. DHowell (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Licensed radio station, and citations in local press show notability--Takver (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shawn Michaels#Personal life. MBisanz ^talk 13:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Michaels

Doesn't appear to assert independent notability, but there's clearly some material out there about her because of her husband and her appearances in a dance group in an entertainment show. Notable, merge to *somewhere?* or Delete? Black Kite 09:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Shawn Michaels. Somewhat informative to the wrestling hords. Proxy User (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Shawn Michaels#Personal life. iMatthew 23:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to either Shawn Michaels#Personal life or Nitro Girls. Nikki♥311 23:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be merged with both Shawn Michaels article and the Nitro Girls article (since she was a Nitro Girl and that's how HBK first noticed her), but not sure which one it should redirect to. TJ Spyke 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say it would have to be the former. There's practically nothing about the dance troupe in the first paragraph, and the remaining two thirds of the article is trivia that doesn't need to be merged anyway. Black Kite 20:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 23:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halfway House (music venue)

No WP:RS for WP:V, WP not for things made up one day. There are 1000 things not to write your article about, I think we're looking at #1001 Flewis^(talk) 08:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A completely pointless article about a house. Where some friends lived. One day some other friends came to visit and played some music. Not notable, no sources, and tragically not even funny or interesting. Nancy ^talk 08:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only a Weak Delete You wouldn't think it, but it's actually a music venue, as seen in this listing or this one. Some of the bands listed at the bottom of the page as having played there are pretty notable, too (UK Subs, Abrasive Wheels, Reagan Youth). Having said that, there's not a huge amount of info out there and it now appears to have shut. Black Kite 10:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable in the first place, and no longer in existence anyway. Sounded like "fun", more like the history of some wild 20-something's youth. Proxy User (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FPSBanana

Seeing this log. The article was deleted three time with A7 tag. After the 3 deletion and yet the article is created without any notability and now iam bring this to afd. It still fails A7. Note: If the majority is delete. I suggest to salt so that article won't be created anymore. If there is any importance the article can be unsalted and created again. SkyWalker (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those three times, the authors used insufficient, unsourced information. There are currently two sources to the information posted in the "History" section. The "power-hungry" (says one of the deleted versions) "super admin" tom (aka Tom Pittlik or clubarfish) along with other moderators keep things "tidied up", so it isn't easily unreliable. On the talk page, IP user 129.97.219.8 (signed AoM) suggested interviews with the original CSC (predecessor to CSB/FPSB) staff; KniteWulf suggested using the Web Archive to view how the website(s) evolved. Thank you. -- Jscorp (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Sorry none of those are RELIABLE.--SkyWalker (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on adding a huge amount of information to this wiki; PCGamer, a prestigious gaming magazine actually put one of the map packs from CSCentral into one of their demo discs. I'm still trying to find the original article, but I do have scanned photos (here's a picture of the menu) of the demo disc. It's really hard to find articles from 2002, and I've been searching avidly for the past few days. I will find it eventually, and when I do, it will be posted up.

I don't consider inclusion on a coverdisk to be an indication of notability. If the magazine has given FPSBanana some significant coverage (more than the blurb shown in the screenshot, per WP:N), then that's a different matter. Marasmusine (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highly useful resource for modders such as myself, but I can't find anything that attests to real notability. PC Gamer UK has occasionally linked to its files when promoting modding work, but that does not count as significant coverage - its merely using the site as what it is: a file sharing network. Consequently, I must lean towards the delete side of things. -- Sabre (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently believe that this site's limited notable references (and purpose, for that matter) are pretty much the FPS equivalent to that of Machinima.com. I will try to incorporate some more sources into the article and redesign the history section. -- Jscorp (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient non-trivial coverage from WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. Randomran (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Bouchier

Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria on WP:PEOPLE dougweller (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is a mess but the autobiography here [16] shows that Bouchier is an author and award-winning essayist and broadcaster on two US National Public Radio Stations, previously an academic at the University of Essex. According to this biographical blurb, he has received two awards for his prose and has written a regular humour column for the Sunday New York Times from 1996-2003, which establishes some kind of notability. The image in the article is probably a copyvio. Mathsci (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He doesn't mention the awards on his website, and I can't find any evidence that the awards even exist, let alone are notable. There's no information about who awarded them either. So I'd say we can pretty safely assume the awards aren't notable. I don't see how he meets the criteria at WP:CREATIVE which actually is what he'd need to meet. dougweller (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SO? <He doesn't mention any awards>! Well, he's a broadcaster! This page has every right to exist.--67.80.57.142 (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)GooglePedia12[reply]
REASONS FOR PRESERVATION:
- I worked VERY HARD on this article
- David Bouchier is famous! Not only is he a reporter, but he expresses his view on things!
- NOBODY ELSE WANTS IT DELETED!
- It's best if it's LEFT ALONE!
- I READ THE CRITERIA FOR DELETION. WHATEVER ABOUT THIS ARTICLE WILL GET IT DELETED, THAT CAN JUST BE EDITED. IT SAYS, EDITING IS AN ALTERNATIVE.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.57.142 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-15 14:16:54 (this is Googlepedia12 who forgot to login)

Shouting will not make an impression, nor will those poor arguments that don't even try to apply Wikipedia's policies in the article's favor.--Atlan (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, how many WP:ATA pitfalls did this fall into just now? I would count the delete !votes; there are several people who want this deleted. MuZemike (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User talk:GooglePedia12, what is wrong with the article is that he is not notable by Wikipedia standards. Being a broadcaster or a journalist does not make him notable. Please read the link I gave to WP:CREATIVE and address that. Have you got any reliable second party sources about him, for instance? Everyone expresses their views on things, that doesn't make everyone notable. dougweller (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. Writing a column, even a prominent column, does not make you notable, unless it makes people write about you. gnfnrf (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Web broadcaster, books which appear to be self-published, no reliable 3rd party references. Fails notability and verifiability criteria, sorry. Additional note to the article author: Britain and England are not the same. Ros0709 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that notability and verifiability have been addressed by User:CactusWriter. Nominator was correct to bring the article here in its original form. Ros0709 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doug's reasoning. Mathsci (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a load of crap. It's about a non-notable person who has a local radio program, is written in the style of a third grader, and contains a lot of rambling, inconsequential, and incorrect information. (For example, he's been broadcasting for many years, not just since 2007.) Articles like this give WP a bad reputation. Anyone who wants to learn anything substantial about David Bouchier should check his web page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.129.120 (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, nothing but primary sources as reference. No notability is claimed in the article nor is any apparant from a Google search (News or otherwise). Not seeing anything other than a author who is also a podcaster which isn't enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). Sorry this has upset the original creator of this article but that energy might be better spent reading up notability guidelines.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - no way to verify this person is notable. For example, he gets no hits on Google news and few on Google itself. I'd like to see more evidence of the awards he has won. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability demonstrated. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search of the NY Times shows David Bouchier wrote a regular humor column for the New York Times Sunday edition called "Out of Order". It appears he wrote the column from 1996 to 2003. I am reserving judgment on notability while I do a further search. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More: He was on a panel with Andy Borowitz at the 2003 ASJA Writers Conference discussing humor in writing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Strong Keep~~ - As a moderator at the 2007 ASJA Writers Conference, here's what the American Society of Journalists and Authors says: David Bouchier, ASJA; is the award-winning essayist for NPR Stations WSHU & WSUF. For ten years he wrote a weekly humor column in the Sunday New York Times. His most recent books are The Song Of Suburbia (essays), and The Cats and the Water Bottles about a year in a French village. His latest book, Writer at Work: Reflections on the Art and Business of Writing, was published in 2005. That the ASJA thinks he significant certainly means he passes WP:CREATIVE. This article was just poorly written, but that is no reason for a deletion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why a 'strong' keep with so little evidence? That looks like a blurb supplied by Bouchier himself. Once again, a source is found that mentions an award but doesn't specify what it is, which sounds as though the award wasn't notable enough for the author to want to be specific. The ASJA itself isn't that impressive (it's just an organisation of free-lance non-fiction writers, offering the various services, etc), and I note that the book mentioned as his latest book is published by them, not by a professional publishing house. So was his 2007 book. If he can't even get his books published by a standard publishing house, where is his notability? dougweller (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doug, I agree, the "strong" part of that keep is probably a bit over the top. However, my conclusion after the search was that he passed notability -- not for any single piece -- but rather for an extended body of work on a national level. It was finding that he had been a regular contributing columnist to Newsday, he had been a featured essayist for NPR, the result of which was a compilation of his essays, he had been a regular columnist for the NY Times, four of his essays are included in Mirth of a Nation: The Best Contemporary Humor, he does currently contribute to NPR, he is not simply a member of ASJA but considered notable enough by his peers to be a panelist and speaker, etc., etc. The thing is - I keep fact-checking his online bio and everything I find continues to corroborate it. I agree with you that the two awards (1996 Best Humor Column and 1995 Best Radio Feature) are probably regional press club awards and of minor note. I think overall, he definitely achieves notability as a feature writer. This article was terribly written and, as is, deserved an Afd nom. But my feeling is that Bouchier is an actual somebody noteworthy on a national level, the article should be rewritten and kept. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm striking my strong keep to just a keep. I think I am wrong about the national extent of his NPR programs since the NPR site doesn't list his bio in their group of national personalities. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You added a bibliography and a search engine that lists his columns for the NY Times as references. So that's all self-written and doesn't pass the notability guideline of significant coverage. Releasing a large body of work doesn't make one notable.--Atlan (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The references were added simply to meet verifiability. Nothing more. And the information I added didn't imply otherwise. I have found absolutely zero significant coverage for Bouchier -- and I'm uncertain that much exists. However, my argument here was whether his notable peers judge him to be notable by sharing a professional panel with him, and as a speaker; and including his work in a book of acknowledged top American humorists; and using him as an expert opinion on humor writing. I'm reading this as a form of "published peer recognition" in the general notability guidelines. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've read the ongoing research and discussion here and I stand by my opinion that there's no evidence of notability here. --Dweller (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Bouchier is very important. Oh. Alrighty. 'Just because HE WON AWARDS and is broadcasted on PUBLIC RADIO doesn't make him important.' That, in a nutshell, is what some of you people are saying. ---GooglePedia12 23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)GooglePedia12
Comment This is about notability according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and you still haven't shown notability. Broadcasting on public radio and minor local awards (which these presumably are because even he doesn't seem to think they are worthwhile identifying specifically) does not show notability. And he doesn't seem able to get a regular publishing house to publish his books, which suggests again that he doesn't meet our standards. dougweller (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Efforts to improve the quality of the article have been largely succesful, yet they fail to address the issue of notability.--Atlan (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of businesses involved in World War II

Methinks there's just not enough to merit an article. <Hollandmc><Talk> 06:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete- I really want to say there's some kind of potential here, but I don't know what. Given that the article was edited all of once since 2006, i'm guessing nobody else knows what either. Umbralcorax (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this list was comprehensive almost every largish company operating anywhere in the world between 1939 to 1945 would need to be on it. As such, this isn't a very useful classification. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nick 'D' Dowling (!). Buckshot06(prof) 11:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting general topic. What you really need to do is look at the businesses by country. (BTW there seems to be a current trend that says: "Businessperson/corporation bad. Politician/government good.") Steve Dufour (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough to hang a hat on, and such a list could potentially run into the thousands, plus there would be an NOR nightmare. 23skidoo (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a virtually unmaintainable, indiscriminate list. You could argue that every American business during that time, whether it be through using their profits to buy War bonds or planting Victory gardens, were involved in the war. MuZemike (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only three businesses were involved in WW2? I don't think so. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasteland (film)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search turns up nothing to support the film's notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An "inde" film that does not yet exist and may never exist. Make the film first. Proxy User (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable sources on this, no news items or reviews. Not notable as of now. Raven1977 (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to list of Wikipedias. So Why 22:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik Wikipedia

Unsourced, non-notable website, just because it is a wiki, it is not article worthy, it must have coverage in reliable sources. MBisanz ^talk 05:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources in evidence. Having an article on everything Wiki, regardless of notability, is a form of bias. --Rividian (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn site per 7,300 articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.123.217 (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - leaving something that's a wikipedia just because it's a wikipedia is bias, as there aren't any reliable/notable secondary sources for this. _David ^WS _(contribs) 15:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of Wikipedias. A list of language versions is a reasonable split of the Wikipedia article; individual articles on Wikipedias that do not even approach WP:GNG are unacceptable. the skomorokh 20:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect works too. --Rividian (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia 76.66.198.46 (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of Wikipedias. - DustyRain (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G3, as a hoax so blatant as to be an invalid article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe Beavers

Possible hoax? I was unable to locate any references to such a pest by performing a Google search. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wacky Waters Adventure Park

Non-notable water park that has been closed for a while. The article basically says that, it was a water park and is now closed. The "Commercial Jingle" section is just an advertisement and the "Attractions" section is clearly inaccurate, now that the park is no longer there. So we are left with two sentences that are actually accurate now.CTJF83 Talk 05:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact the park is closed does not disqualify it from inclusion here. Besides, a Google news search confirms its notability: [17]. Ecoleetage (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Take some time to click on a few of the links. Most of them have nothing to do with this Wacky Waters. CTJF83Talk 05:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but I did...and some (not all) of them do. In any event, being a defunct organization does not merit deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but only two sentences are now notable on that page. CTJF83Talk 06:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's two notable sentences, isn't it? We can always work on expanding and enhancing the article, no? Ecoleetage (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how, since it is closed. I'll just wait to see what other users think. CTJF83Talk 06:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It would have fought for notability if it were still in existence and it ain't getting better from here. --Kickstart70TC 19:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable in life, even less so in death. Proxy User (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Not existing anymore" is NOT criteria for Wikipedia article deletion and former existence doesn't make any person or entity less notable. Astroland, Rocky Point Amusement Park, Heritage USA and countless others are all "not existing anymore" either. --Oakshade (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those 3 examples are far more notable, and have more page info. How can you turn it from a 2 sentence stub, into an article, when it is non-existent now? CTJF83Talk 23:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As what Oakshade said, just because it doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean it's suddenly non-notable. Two sentences, it's a valid stub. The attractions is change to former attractions, and wallah. _David ^WS _(contribs) 23:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a problem here...it's true that notability does not expire, but that in itself does not prove notability existed in the first place. --Kickstart70TC 02:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Comments like "even less [notable] in death" are unhelpful considering notability doesn't decline at all because of death/closing/whatever - please restrict comments to your valid reasons for deletion. Note further that I have no opinion on notability/otherwise of this waterpark.--Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In Iowa, any sizable, dedicated water park is notable, and this one operated for decades. When the rescue training center opens up and gets its own page, I'd be open to merging the two pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.95.151 (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Or Hell

WP:NN album from barely notable band. Recreation of previously deleted material via {{prod}} by WP:COI author. See related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David and the Giants (album) Toddst1 (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G4, recreation of a previously deleted article. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, article is not eligible for CSD G4, as that criterion does not cover articles that have been prodded. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Just because an article has been deleted before, a new version of it should not immidiatley be deleted. This article seems to hold up to WP:MUSIC and should be kept.ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources in the article, and I couldn't find any coverage of the album. In the absence of any third party sources it doesn't merit an article - could be mentioned in the band's article.--Michig (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 10:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Citizens for a Canadian Republic . That article has survived its AfD. Content under the re-direct for whoever wants to merge. StarM 17:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Freda

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable vanity page for self-styled republican advocate of CCR. Fails WP:N, WP:BIO. There are no reliable third-party sources to justify the article. Notability has never been established - Google hits don't establish notability, valid, reliable 3rd-party sources do. A couple of protests and newspaper articles does not make one notable. Since the article has gone through 2 AFDS no valid sources have been added to establish notability. One of the executive members of this CCR has also serious conflict of interest, created Citizens for a Canadian Republic, vanity page for personal website, Filibuster Cartoons, and his own page J.J. McCullough (User:J.J.. All of these fail WP notability guidelines miserably. I am suspicious that User:J.J., who is a member of the CCR "executive commitee", has been using sockpuppets and what have you to promote the organization on Wikipedia. This behaviour should not be tolerated and User:J.J. should be sanctioned. Delete all once and for all and let us send a message to those who try to abuse WP for fringe promotional efforts. Laval (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Citizens for a Canadian Republic (if that article survives its AFD). On his own, Freda does not seem to have much notability, but some of this info can easily be moved. And we should avoid terms such as "vanity pages" as there is no evidence that the article was created by Freda himself. freshacconci talktalk 18:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Citizens for a Canadian Republic - Freda does not appear to be that notable (given the lack of reliable sources), and his only claim to fame appears to be his association with that organisation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Merge per freshacconci Clubmarx (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anaconda 4: Trail of Blood

Unnotable future film with no significant coverage at this time and only a vague "coming soon" date. All info taken straight from IMDB. Fails WP:NFF. No prejudice against recreation when it actually airs and can be verified. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Temp keep~~ ~~as I will be correcting the article's flaws over the next few minutes. The film is completed and slated to air in December. If there's coverage, I'll find it.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and bring back when there is coverage. I made the article much prettier per MOS, but Collectonion is right... there's just not enough out there yet. Maybe in 6 weeks? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rotten tomatoes is enough 3rd party coverage for me.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 03:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when it is released it will obviously be notable enough for inclusion. Whether it will be released or not is not really in doubt, since principal photography has already been done and there's money riding on it. Wikipedia does not and should not have a policy against including articles on products that are currently being put together; rather, the policies against future events and products exists because such things are often difficult to verify, or may not exist at all in the future. Those policies do not apply here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The existence of the film is not in question here. It is understood that the film is planned for release. However, the policy on Future Films requires that a film meet general notability guidelines for significant coverage -- meaning something more than a mention. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFF which requires significant coverage. An internet search has not found any significant coverage in sources which will allow the film to pass general notability guidelines. The only information is pre-marketing mentions as an upcoming film. Until it is released and reviewed the film should not have a stand-alone article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or, better yet, create a "Anaconda (film series)" page and merge both Anaconda 3 and Anaconda 4 into that page, as BOTH are non-notable films. Being on Rotten Tomatoes does not make something notable, just like being on IMDb does not. Notability is defined as "significant coverage", neither of those sites actually provide. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, "notability" is not defined as "significant coverage." I'm afraid you're incorrect. --Pixelface (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marshall Field. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Field family

This is supposed to be a disambigution, but isn't disambiguating anything because no one would type "Marshall Field family" looking for one of the people on the list. All of the names on here is already included in the Marshall Field article and thus isn't needed. Tavix (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The disambig reads like a 'once upon a time' story. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 08:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marshall Field then delete. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It already has been merged, so I take it you are wanting to delete. Tavix (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 03:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marshall Field. Not very useful as a disambig, but somewhat plausible as a search term. Redirects are cheap, after all. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nao Kudo

There seems to be a stable article on ja.wikipedia, but none of the text here claims notability by en.wikipedia standards. Technically meets the {{db-person}} standard for speedy deletion, but I'm not proposing that. I am proposing deletion unless some claim of notability is written in English and sourced, even if to a Japanese-language source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since Wikipedia is not really cleanup, I think this nomination should be closed. I left the nominator a note on his talk page with an alternative idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm saying that (1) I can't find evidence that she's notable (probably because I can't read Japanese), and (2) the article doesn't present even a statement that she's notable. I suspect she is, but unless someone provides the evidence, it should go. Perhaps a better translation of the ja.wikipedia article would provide some evidence of notability. As I said in the nomination, it presently satisfies the {{db-person}} criterion for deletion. Translators are blocked here at work, so I can't look at the google or yahoo translation of the ja. page to see if that has evidence of notability.
- So I'm not requesting cleanup. I'm requesting deletion unless some evidence of notability is found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @MacGyverMagic: No, don't put it on a user talk page, put it here, so we can all see and debate it. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it here, so anyone interested could look it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 02:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. If it turns out that she becomes notable, the article can be recreated. Tankin' up valuble room... Proxy User (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting would take up additional room because the deletion would also need to be recorded along with the deleted history. -Mgm|^(talk) 01:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many times does this have to be relisted before being closed as no consensus? Fg2 (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If no argument in favor of keeping the article is presented, it probably should be deleted. MacGyverMagic has made comments, but presented no arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability via reliable sources. If someone finds good reliable sources, the article can be re-created. Raven1977 (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No third-party reference sources have been forthcoming, so it's hard to see any evidence of notability here. As the nominator says, the article as it stands basically comes under "db-person" criteria for speedy deletion. --DAJF (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Fire Burning

No demonstrated fulfillment of any WP:BOOK notability criteria. Vianello (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, would not appear to meet any of the WP:BK notability criteria. Note that this is not a judgement on the quality of the book itself, merely of the reception it has received. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could only find one source for this. Also, this shows that it is self published. Schuym1 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That last bit is irrelevant. Self-published books can be notable too. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Weimer

Fails WP:ATHLETE. The fact that the article has no sources and reads like an resume makes it difficult to verify the claims in the article, but, even if true, they don't seem adequate to establish WP:Notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable member of established soccer league. Maybe not your cup-o-tea, but none the less notable. Proxy User (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATHLETE suggests that, for that to be adequate notability, the team must be "in a fully professional league". If you can provide evidence of that, I'll withdraw the nomination. When I checked, all the post-college teams in the infobox were redlinked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: All of the post-collegiate leagues/teams now have links to the teams and/or leagues that the team is in. Popndopalis8 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Popndopalis8[reply]
Keep. It is encyclopedic. 29 dot 21 dot 87 dot 7 (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User is probably stalking me because I've been reverted his BLP violations across multiple articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks well written to me. Professional football leagues for women players are not very common, so far as I know. Peridon (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is true that WP:ATHLETE states that players must have played in a fully professional league. However, in women's football, I'm not sure there are any fully professional leagues, so we must take into consideration the point about playing at the highest level of amateur sport. Seems like this player meets that criterion, hence the keep !vote. – PeeJay 22:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I seem to remember hearing that the Women's Bundesliga in Germany is fully pro. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can tell, the US W-League and the Greek football women A Division are also fully pro. The rest seem to be semi-pro. Seeing as she has played in neither, and considering that none of the sources supplied establish her notability (for instance, being named a top regional freshman player doesn't really cut it as far as university sports go), I think I'll stick with WP:ATHLETE guidelines and say delete. Bettia (rawr!) 10:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Err... If I went to W-League article right here on Wikipedia. It says, in the very first sentence, "The USL W-League is currently the second highest level of professional women's soccer in the United States pyramid." Key word- SECOND HIGHEST. How can it be fully professional if it's the second highest? Per [website], she has played on the Washington Freedom team, which IS included in thw W-League. SeeAreDubya (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)SeeAreDubya (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      - Why would being the second highest league in a league system automatically preclude a competition from being fully pro? The Football League Championship is the second-highest men's league in England but is fully professional, as are many other second-highest leagues......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Interesting. According to that she DID play for the Washington Reds back in 2006 (a fact missing from this article), and the Reds ARE currently a fully pro team. However (and this is a big however), I note from their history page they were simply associate members of the W-League at the time, not full members. Therefore they weren't competing at a fully professional level at the time, and therefore she still wouldn't qualify as she had moved on to amateur football by the time they became full members. Bettia (rawr!) 14:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think we are all in agreement that there is no professional league and/or teams in the world of Women's Soccer in The United States, seeing as no one has come up with a professional league within The United States. And until the first whistle blows at the first WPS game in 2009, there will NOT be any fully professional league in The United States for women's soccer. Keeping that in mind, WP:ATHLETE states "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Seeing as there are only amateur leagues for women's soccer in the U.S. and there are only smaller amateur leagues, I would say that Weimer meets the criterion for WP:ATHLETE. She also participated in the Women's Premier Soccer League and right on the banner of the [website], "Providing the highest level of women's amateur soccer in the US since 1998" which almost word for word state the parameters for WP:ATHLETE. SeeAreDubya (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC) SeeAreDubya (talk)[reply]
Provisional delete , as it does not appear that she has actually appeared at the highest level possible (and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE) - she has played in the Women's Premier Soccer League, which according to this article is actually the third tier of Women's football in the USA. However, it is unclear what division Santos are in in Brazil (and whether she has actually ever played for them) - if someone can provide proof that they are in the top division and that she is indeed playing for them (I couldn't find any evidence of this with a quick google search), I may change my !vote. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find anything confirming she plays for Santos, but this news article states that the Brazilian league is not fully professional at the moment, so it wouldn't really matter if she did. Bettia (rawr!) 14:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per PeeJay's comment about the professional/amateur divide in women's football, I would err on the side of caution and say she has played at the highest possible level, thus meeting notability requirements. Giant Snowman 23:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How could you write an article on a professional soccer player without it sounding like a resume? The point of an encyclopedia is to inform the reader on the accomplishments of said professional player. It is impossible to be a fully professional women's soccer player in the United States, seeing as the women's league isn't going to start until 2009. Thus, this article gets my keep vote. SeeAreDubya (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I'm the editor and creator of page "Tiffany Weimer." I'd like to let everyone know that I've added references, and that there will be more to come. I'm sorry if this has caused you any trouble. I'm working my very hardest to find the right sources to verify the appropriateness of this page. Again sorry if this has caused you any trouble. Popndopalis8 Popndopalis8 (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This website [[18]](click SQUAD on the top of the page where it says, Home News Photos Squad etc.), which places Weimer on the Aland United FC squad in Finland. With this in mind, this website [[19]] places that FC in the Naisten Liiga league in Finland (right under date of match, in which she netted the game-winning goal, listed as "competition") and the Naisten Liiga Wikipedia article states that "Naisten Liiga ("Women's League") is the highest division of women's football in Finland." Therefore, Weimer does not fail WP:ATHLETE because she has attained the highest level of a sport. I, the author of article "Tiffany Weimer", have added these references to the article. Popndopalis8 (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'highest level' as far as football is concerned is playing at a fully professional level, not simply playing in the top league of any given country. As far as we can tell, she has not yet played at a fully professional level, and therefore does fail. Bettia (rawr!) 12:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just so we're on the same page, define "fully professional level" in terms of Women's Soccer in the United States. WP:ATHLETE also states that if a player reaches the highest level of an amateur sport, then they are notable. If there is no professional league in Finland for women's soccer, then that is the highest level in an AMATEUR sport. which does NOT fail WP:ATHLETE. Find me a fully professional Women's Soccer Team in Finland and I'll move on to my next point. If there is NO women's soccer professional league, then you have no case. Popndopalis8 (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Popndopalis8 (talk)[reply]
    - Full professional = receiving a full-time wage, i.e. one high enough so that the player doesn't need to take a second job to support themselves and are therefore able to devote their working time to their sport. Most women's football leagues are semi-professional (not amateur as you've stated), where they receive a smaller wage and so take a second job, therefore they aren't fully professional. Because she's participating in a sport which has a fully professional level, it can't be said that she's reached the highest level. It's already been established that there ARE professional women's leagues in the world, including the US. Bettia (rawr!) 14:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry, I don't recall seeing anything in WP:ATHLETE about classification of wages. Furthermore I don't see anything about "semi-professional" either. WP:ATHLETE is as black and white as you get; "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.

Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." I guess you didn't find anything about that professional women's team in Finland, either, huh? Popndopalis8 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Popndopalis8[reply]

The definition I gave has nothing to do with WP:ATHLETE, it's a general description regarding sports as a whole. And whether or not there's any pro teams in Finland is totally irrelevant - football is an international game and so any players on Wikipedia must have played in a professional league anywhere in the world to meet WP:ATHLETE, regardless of where they live. If we followed the "there's no pro league in this country" path, every player in a country where there's no pro league would suddenly meet Wikipedia guidelines! Would you be willing to write an article on some guy languishing in the Bhutan & District Sunday League, for example? Bettia (rawr!) 16:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what if there is no professional league in a certain country? Whether or not Finland has a professional team/league is relevant because you're still disregarding the second aspect of WP:ATHLETE the one about the highest level of amateur sport. You're right it IS an international game, every country has some form of amateur sport and if that country does NOT have a professional team, then it only has amateur. Tiffany Weimer to someone on Bhutan & District Sunday League are on completely different spectrums. Do you think that if that article popped up that anyone would have anything to back that claim up. I mean we are still debating Weimer, who has played on 4 notable clubs, Aland United FC, Santos FC, Washington Freedom (Associate member or not, they were still members) and SoccerPlus CT Reds. These are ALL notable. You can't deny that. Popndopalis8 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Popndopalis8[reply]

Whether or not a club is notable is irrelevant. There are thousands of clubs notable enough for Wikipedia, but only a relative few of them would enable their players to qualify. Bettia (rawr!) 09:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Kane: Me and the Boys

Hoax? Can't verify any of the sources. Can't find info on any of the publishers. Can't locate the books. No relevant ghits. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 04:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try double checking the references, given the band was formed in the 1960s in Albania, you might just have difficulty getting access to them, Hannah Kane Me and Boys is a highly influential band, with a number of significant attributes, many of which are outlined in the articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hstarr1490 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 15 November 2008— Hstarr1490 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Zero Google hits, can't find info on any of the sources, can't find Pilson Univ. If they are highly influential it shouldn't be too difficult to find a few sources. --skew-t (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ridiculously probable hoax/satire. I'd speculate that this is a deliberate exploitation of the procedures in the AfD policy, intended to be as difficult to delete for cause as possible (by wasting time tracking non-existent references and obscure false facts). Note also that Hstarr1490 is the article's principal author: maybe he/she might be interested in demonstrating that the references are real. TheFeds 04:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFeds (talk • contribs) [reply]
Hannah Kanë: me and the boys changed the kourse of Albanian music. Kanë revolutionized what has become contemporary Albanian hip hop. Speaking as a hip hop / pop Albanian music artist myself, I profess that my contemporaries and I would not be here today if it were not for this important band and their musical influences. I know for a fact that my friends, the hiphop band "D and the boys" based the title of their group on Kanë's band.

Just because they are not part of the dominant (read: american) culture, does not mean that this band is not notable and significant to the lives of many people. I would be happy to direct you to a number of Albanian music websites mentioning HK & the boys. For example: http://www.zemrashqiptare.net/article/muzike/page_3/ http://www.zeriyt.com/rbhiphop/historia-e-brezit-hip-hop-t35212.0.html http://www.xenini.com/muzika_thijesht/muzika.htm http://kumanova.li/modules/news/article.php?storyid=45 All of these briefly mention Kanë's role in the evolution of Albanian hip hop. please keep wikipedia demokratik and culturally unbiased. you can find my music @ http://www.myspace.com/blero1 and http://blero.tk Thankyou / Falënderim, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blero_albania (talk • contribs) 04:47, 16 November 2008 — Blero albania (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Granted, Albanians are just as entitled to recognition on Wikipedia as anyone else. Maybe you'd care to edit the article so that it contains verifiable information? But the important issue at hand is that the article contains numerous ridiculous falsehoods. For example, the business about 300 m hurdles in the 1992 Paralympics? False, that event does not exist, that sport wasn't part of the 1992 Paralypics, and Albania didn't even send any athletes to those Games. When information like that was added by the article's original author (like this), it casts the reputablilty of the author in serious doubt. TheFeds 02:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because it's Albanian but because it's a hoax. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as transparent hoax. ~~The author~~ Blero_albania points us to "a number of Albanian music websites mentioning HK and the boys" and lists four. I can't read Albanian, but I can do a "Find in this page" search: neither "Hannah" nor "Kane" is mentioned in any of the four. The books and publishers cited don't exist, either. Uncyclopedia is the place for this sort of rubbish. JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure of the details of some of the entry but I do know when I audited classes under Jane Sugarman - in Ethnomusicology at CUNY in NYC - that this band came up. There is a current tribute band that's popular in Albania called HANA BAND. Also Haxhi Dalipi, Director of the (Albanian) State Ensemble of Popular Music is a fan and said so in a recent appearance in a rockumentary about Shkodra - all of these are verfiable sources. Probably should check out refs to the band again not in this detail in 'The Criminals of Albanian Music': Albanian Commercial Folk Music and Issues of Identity since 1990," in Balkan Popular Culture and the Ottoman Ecumene: Music, Image, and Regional Political Discourse, ed. Donna A. Buchanan (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2007) and I understand it will also be referenced in "Albania." Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World, v. 7, ed. John Shepherd, David Horn, and Dave Laing (London: Continuum Books). Hope this helps.Globalunity (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC) — Globalunity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Welcome to Wikipedia, Globalunity (unless, perish the thought, you should be Hstarr1490 or Blero_albania in disguise, or both). Well, you're trying a bit harder this time, citing real books with real publishers; but unfortunately the COPAC record for "Balkan Popular Culture and the Ottoman Ecumene", ed. Donna A. Buchanan, shows its contents list which does not include the article you cite: "'The Criminals of Albanian Music': Albanian Commercial Folk Music and Issues of Identity since 1990". In any case, the long list in the original article of fake references from non-existent publishers makes it clear the whole thing is a deliberate hoax. Uncyclopedia is that-a-way. JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Shotokan Karate

This martial arts school has no sources to establish its notability, and it doesn't really make much of a claim of notability either. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a very regular user being so busy with work and other stuff so I am glad I logged in today and noticed this page proposed for deletion. I have seen this happen to karate pages before just because printed book references are hard to find for what is largely a spoken tradition. I am fed up with up-themselves academics who spout latin thinking they have a monopoly on what is covered by wikipedia, which is meant to be the encyclopedia of everything.
- Comment It is difficult that only the oldest martial arts have books. If you could provide a "Shotokan Karate" magazine[20] article (or a similar magazine), most people here would accept it as a valid reference. Verifiability is very important in Wiki. jmcw (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia is not meant to be the encyclopedia of everything. To quote the Five Pillars. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects." McWomble (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know a couple of guys in the ASK, so I know it is an elite federation with membership limited to high quality clubs, and Sensei Dave Hazard is an instructor of legendary skill and highly respected in the karate world. They are very successful in national and international competitions. The page should be tagged for improvement not deletion.--Ninja Shewolf (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide evidence of this. You could start among its 157 Google hits. I don't see where I used any Latin. Blast Ulna (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Blast Ulna. I suspect Ninja Shewolf spotted the Latin on your userpage, as I did. The US google hits you provide are not relevant and probably not notable, but these from UK google will be more helpful. The ASK is very much a notable federation in karate in the British Isles and has clubs in Canada. Its founder Dave Hazard, trained in Tokyo, is an internationally renowned instructor. I generally agree with the shewolf although she should not bite an editor acting in good faith. As she says hard copy references are difficult, but there are many online refs. It must be better to have a stub article awaiting improvement than a red link and it does not take up a lot of server space. If space is a problem it would surely be better to delete some of the old vandalised pages that are of no use. I recently read that Jimmy Wales does not consider notability a criterion for deletion. I also want the article kept and improved, not deleted.
    - Every single one of those is self published, links from other karate clubs or blogs. They are not reliable sources. There is a grand total of ONE Gnews hit, a passing reference in the Salford Advertiser. In the absence of reliable sources supporting notability, delete or redirect to Shotokan. McWomble (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. JJL (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge redirect into List_of_major_Shotokan_Karate_organizations, per Philcha.*Delete This article does not make any referenced claim that it is more notable than the other 500 thousand dojos in the world. jmcw (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment added section List_of_Shotokan_organizations#Academy_of_Shotokan_Karate jmcw (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hazard is notable, but this dojo isnot RogueNinja_talk 19:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a dojo. It is an international federation.Charles (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep / merge redirect into List_of_major_Shotokan_Karate_organizations. I agree with "It must be better to have a stub article awaiting improvement than a red link" above, per WP:DELETE. In its present state, I'd merge redirect, as the article is very short. Redirection would avoid red links and would make expansion easy if more content with WP:RS are added. Re WP:RS, you have to adapt to the types of material available in a field. I mainly edit paleontology and and other biology articles, and in that field there are plenty of peer-reviewed journals and books by authors who have published in peer-reviewed journals. However I know of other fields where less formal sources are all that's available. Karate has a large following but it is not a big-money sport, so gets little coverage in big-name newspapers. Hence the main sources are web sites of clubs and other organizations involved in the sport. If several clubs or prominent competitors express support for Dave Hazard's Academy of Shotokan Karate, that's as good as one can reasonably expect in this field. --Philcha (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please also see WP:MANOTE for thoughts on the notablity of martial arts, artists & schools. --Nate 14 81 17:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, maybe notable enough for the list but looks to be unlikely to have enough info sourceable not to be a permanent stub. --Nate 14 81 17:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supa Nova Productions

Orphaned, unreferenced article about a hip-hop label that does not appear to meet the notability guideline and whose artists would not meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines. I attempted to search for sources that would help to establish WP:N notability—see this and this search in Google News archives, for example. I also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles but found nothing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I also concur with the nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 22:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Sadler

Once placed 5th in a non-notable competition. No other claim to notability. No hints of notability generated in Google search. Bongo matic 02:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete World's Strongest Man IS a notable competition, but his performance in it was not. Themfromspace (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I was surprised that the only significant coverage I could find independent of both Sadler and the World's Strongest Man event was this from a local newspaper. This isn't enough, but if some significant coverage could be found, I would be happy to keep.--Michig (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Athlete who has competed in his sport at the highest level. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see evidence in World's Strongest Man that the event qualifies as the "highest level" in "amateur sports" as contemplated in WP:ATHLETE. Bongo matic 05:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there is no official highest level. I have read a sidebar to an article in Australian Inside Sport magazine #161 which seems to say World's Strongest Man (the "final" of the World's Strongest Man Super Series) is considered to be one of those at the highest level, if not the highest. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy and American Society

Fails WP:BK ScienceApologist (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as per nom 3 Gnews hits with none of them a review, Google Books similarly does not produce reviews. RayAYang (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep as per reviews found by johnfos below. RayAYang (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable contributors such as Amory Lovins and Joseph Romm have written chapters in this book. Johnfos (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So? How does that contribute to the notability? Or are you claiming that they are such overwhelmingly important people that anything they write is notable? RayAYang (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are scholarly reviews for this book here and here. Johnfos (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep retitle Per Johnfos. The notability of this book doesn't appear to be problematic. Ecoleetage (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep retitle. In addition to the reviews Johnfos mentions, the book was backed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and published by Springer, a heavyweight scientific publisher. However I'd rename the article using the book's full title Energy and American Society – Thirteen Myths, as Energy and American Society is too broad, e.g. it might be used to sum up analyses of energy consumption in the USA, history of energy usage and links to other social trends such as women's lib, policies, academic analyses, public attitudes, etc. --Philcha (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename if the claims of being backed by notable sources as said by User:Philcha are true and accurate. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E. Kyle Datta

Fails WP:BIO ScienceApologist (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Booze allen has a number of VPs, but managing partner for the Asian division is notable, especially in connection with the books he has written. DGG (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with DGG. Johnfos (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per DGG...but I think he means Booz Allen (though Booze Allen is probably a more intoxicating workplace!). Ecoleetage (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Consensus confirms the company's notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clipper Windpower

Fails WP:CORP ScienceApologist (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article doesn't fail WP:CORP just because it was written by User:Johnfos. There's plenty to work with, and the article already cites some refs. Zagalejo^^^ 02:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable company with notable developmental project. DGG (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop. Good refs and an important subject: windpower. This company is notable.Marcia Wright (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with all of the above. Johnfos (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as well stated above. rkmlai (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has references from several reliable sources, including what appear to be major publications. Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow (non-admin closure) _David ^WS _(contribs) 22:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Hansen

Fails WP:BIO ScienceApologist (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:BIO. The article already has a couple of refs, and there's more material out there: [21]. Zagalejo^^^ 02:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A full NYT article, and a Guardian obit? that's notable. DGG (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with DGG. Johnfos (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS Ecoleetage (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he would be an expert in his field, which is a highly relevant and researchable field, surely? - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dian Grueneich

Fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Merge The California Public Utilities Commission appears to be a significant regulatory body, with members getting proportionate press coverage [22]. However, the coverage appears entirely to be within the context of the commission's duties. I suspect that while the commission is definitely notable, members may not. RayAYang (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several hundred sources on google News Archive. [23]. At least the first 4 clearly mainly about her. Of course the coverage about her will be mainly because of her position--that is why she's notable. The same is true of cabinet secretaries and senators and all other people in politics--and similarly in other fields. Why are these nominations being done without even checking the most obvious and easy to find sources.DGG (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with DGG. Johnfos (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not appear to be in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is notable independently of her work, which is also notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Schlissel

Fails WP:BIO ScienceApologist (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A paltry 35 Gnews hits suggests that despite a very long career in advocacy, he hasn't managed much attention. He gets quoted as an "expert" with some frequency, but apparently that's rather his job description. This one is truly borderline -- his mentions in secondary sources are almost all incidental, and his technical work comes nowhere near the other standard, which is WP:PROF. I !vote a weak keep simply because readers may wonder who he is. RayAYang (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNews hits aren't like plain ghits--they're screened, and if one cant make negative judgements by counting them, since two are enough for the GNG. Anyway, the NYT describes him [24] as a "nuclear expert" and that's sufficient. DGG (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with DGG. Johnfos (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Ecoleetage (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tons of keeps, no deletes (non-admin closure) _David ^WS _(contribs) 22:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Mills (solar researcher)

Fails WP:BIO ScienceApologist (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Linked press coverage of a company he's founded is significant. I suggest we move the page to David Mills (businessman), however, as his prominence seems to derive from his heading up a company to produce solar power machinery, rather than his research. RayAYang (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another moderately notable public figure, with sufficient refs for notability. DGG (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above. rkmlai (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as founder of Ausra (company) he is clearly notable. Johnfos (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable business executive, passes WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Qualifies under WP:PROF c. 6 (highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society); former President of the International Solar Energy Society.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA ^duel 22:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Lowry

Fails WP:BIO ScienceApologist (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he seems to meet WP:PROF by [25] which seems applicable here. Nomination is too brief. JJL (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remark I do not see how a press release by an advocacy organization satisfies the requirements of WP:PROF. In fact, his academic contributions appear to be minimal and primarily in the context of policy advocacy. If the contents of his resume can be verified, he may meet general WP:BIO standards as a policy adviser, or possibly as the author of a notable book if his book is indeed notable. RayAYang (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral He doesn't seem to have done much work, or been cited that much, but if he does write a lot of articles in the popular press, then an article seems appropriate. II | (t - c) 04:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lowry is quite well-known and he won a Nuclear-Free Future Award in 2001 [26]. Johnfos (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search on a few academic databases suggests that he does not seem to have enough to qualify as notable specifically under WP:PROF; but he seems to have enough independent media coverage to qualify as notable under WP:BIO. Also, the Nuclear-Free Future Award that he received seems notable, although his category, Special Recognition, does not carry a monetary award (other categories give $10,000).--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North london stags

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/North london stags

Un-notable rugby league team, no sources, no prose, plenty of issues, a team that is in a minor league, gives no context, orphaned, uncategorised, created by an editor with this as his only contribution to Wikipedia (may be one purpose account). Suggest deletion, prod was removed with no explanation. The Windler talk 01:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. Fails WP:N with no WP:RS. Minor teams don't need an article here. Definitely not premier league.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability that I can see. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folke Rydén

WP:N and/or WP:V - see below, if interested, for my further expounding, written as well as I can make the points needed to be made for a full understanding of why it may be correct to delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilEikS (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC) It was NOT MY INTENTION to leave this comment unsigned. I thought I put in: EmilEikS (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Renominating to fix page Sting Buzz Me... 01:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I removed extra comments when I renominated, which may be found here.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folke Rydén probably meets criteria for notability on English wikipedia, but this article does not establish that with references. Maybe nothing else is written in English about Rydén, but external verification can also be by sources written in Swedish (WP:CSB#Biographies). Criticism of Rydén's perceived biases can also be mentioned in the article, if there is a reliable source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC) (copied in from article discussion page by EmilEikS (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Desperately needs sources, but AFIK that is not a reason to delete the article. Garion96 (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News searches (past month and archive) show that the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable sources. Some of this is in English, but Swedish sources are just as valid for establishing notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect - just about plausible typo. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barrrow A.F.C.

There is already a decent article on Barrow A.F.C. This article is entirely unnecessary (not to mention misspelled). I-hunter (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —I-hunter (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Barrow A.F.C. as unnecessary duplication.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Redirect to Barrow A.F.C., though deletion is also a possibility. — BillC ^talk 01:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above but I don't think a redirect is neccesary, as its not exactly a common misspelling. Billscottbob (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barrow A.F.C., somewhat plausible typo (hey, at least one person has evidently made it), and redirects are cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or Redirect SF007 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 opinion on final name MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 11 November 2008

Looks like a textbook WP:NOT#NEWS case. A military skirmish between the Somali pirates and a British navy ship that just happened 3 days ago. No way to predict if the event will have a lasting effect and sustained coverage beyond the brief period after the event itself. If a few months from now there is still coverage of this event, creating an article may be appropriate then. But it is very premature now. Nsk92 (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would like to declare that I am a relatively heavy editor of this article, so I understand if some people may view my position on whether this article should be deleted as biased. To respond to that, I promise that I will comment regarding this deletion discussion from a neutral standpoint.

One of Nsk92's main arguments, is that the article is a "WP:NOT#NEWS case. WP:NOT#NEWS states "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article". I agree with this guideline, but I do not believe it applies to this article, as the article is covering an event which I believe is sufficiently less trivial than "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism". I believe this because the engagement has been described in the Times of London as "the first time the Royal Navy had been engaged in a fatal shoot-out on the high seas in living memory."[27] This quote does suggest the subject of the article is sufficiently non-trivial for it not to be labelled as a WP:NOT#NEWS article.

One of Nsk92's other main arguments, is that the event may not have "sustained coverage beyond the brief period after the event itself". To respond to that, I would like to direct to WP:NTEMP, which states "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". Basically, if the article already meets WP:N, which I believe this article does based upon the national newspaper articles cited in the article, evidence of "sustained coverage beyond the brief period after the event itself" is not needed to establish notability.

The other main argument, is that the battle may not have a " lasting effect". I do not believe there is a Wikipedia guideline which states that a battle must have a "lasting effect" in order for an article to be written about it.

Also, there is an argument that the engagement is not sufficiently significant in of itself to warrant an article. To counter that, the engagement has been described as "the first time since the 1982 Falklands War that the Royal Navy had killed anyone on the high seas" [28], "the first time the Royal Navy had been engaged in a fatal shoot-out on the high seas in living memory", "signalled a new policy of maximum robustness for the Royal Navy on the high seas" [29], "believed to be the first time recently that British [naval] service personnel have been involved in a confrontation that resulted in deaths"[30], and the "first time Russian forces have moved against Somali pirates." I believe these descriptions shows that the engagement is apart from many other anti-piracy engagements around the world, and also that it is sufficiently significant to warrant an article.[31] BlueVine (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I suggest that you formally record your opinion as a "keep" !vote below, for the record (you are perfectly entitled to do that). On the substance, while this event is certainly less trivial than the results a sports match, it is not so obviously significant as to clearly deserve a separate article the moment the event happens. In my experience, WP:NOT#NEWS has been consistently interpreted and applied as to mean that if an event only receives substantial coverage during a brief period of time surrounding the event itself, it does not merit an article. This does not mean that there has to be significant coverage of equal intensity to the initial coverage 6 months or a year from the event itself (even for significant events the coverage necessarily drops off after a while). But it does mean that months after event there must be some instances of in-depth coverage of it or perhaps some evidence of that event having proved to be influential in some other way (e.g. influencing policy, lawmaking etc). There are exeption to this rule, but they generally concern obviously major events, such as, for example, 2008 South Ossetia war. The subject of the present article appears to be a fairly minor military confrontation between the pirates and a governmental military ship, that are frequently reported on in the news. It does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of an event that is clearly so significant at the time it happened as to require a separate article. It may be that this particular skirmish will prove more consequential for some reason, but that remains to be seen and only time will tell. Nsk92 (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you for the ok to post a !vote, but I do not wish to do so. As a heavily involved editor of the article, I feel it would be right of me not to submit a !vote during this discussion.

Nsk92, I agree that Wikipedia should not allow articles covering, say, an incident involving a cat up a tree, just because the incident received lots of media coverage, because the incident is fairly trivial. I believe the subject of the article is sufficiently significant, because this engagement is "the first time the Royal Navy had been engaged in a fatal shoot-out on the high seas in living memory". I believe that fact establishes the unique concrete significance of the battle. And the fact that the battle "signalled a new policy of maximum robustness for the Royal Navy on the high seas" [32], also shows that the engagement is apart from "fairly minor military confrontation between the pirates and a governmental military ship, that are frequently reported on in the news" that Nsk92 described. Also, the Independent, reported that the battle is "believed to be the first time recently that British [naval] service personnel have been involved in a confrontation that resulted in deaths"[33], which I believe adds to the idea that this battle is significant. Also, Russia Today has reported that the battle is the "first time Russian forces have moved against Somali pirates." [34] BlueVine (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor encounter with no lasting notability. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-If I may ask, why do you think the encounter is minor, when it has been stated that the battle is "believed to be the first time recently that British [naval] service personnel have been involved in a confrontation that resulted in deaths", and "the first time the Royal Navy had been engaged in a fatal shoot-out on the high seas in living memory"? As for no lasting notability, according to WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. Thank you in advance if you respond to my query.BlueVine (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is, admittedly, some tension between WP:NTEMP and WP:NOT#NEWS. As for your first question: I think we cover the matter sufficiently here; no need for a full article. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 05:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Correct. Note also that WP:NTEMP is a part of WP:N which is a guideline, while WP:NOT#NEWS is a part of WP:NOT, which is a policy. In cases of doubt policies overrule guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment WP:NOT is indeed a policy, as opposed to WP:N. However, Nsk92, you are arguing that WP:NOT is appropriate grounds for the deletion of the article based upon an "interpretation", not upon what WP:NOT definetly says. WP:NOT says "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article", and I believe I have shown this article is covering a subject sufficiently more significant than announcements, sports reports e.t.c. BlueVine (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lasting notability already exists. Just as the notability of the seizure of British troops by Iran was notable, so is this. This is a dramatic switch, and highly notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This article is notable because it is the first naval battle fought by british forces since the korean war. The battle is the most lethal one fought against pirates in Operation enduring freedom horn of africa so far. This battle is also notable world wide, citing the example that there is already a Japanese version of this article. This article has a solid fact basis and is notable so why should it be deleted as opposed to the dozens of articles of minor civil war skirmishes which have been on wikipedia for years.XavierGreen (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this episode a "naval battale" is rather a stretch. Based on the text of the article itself it looks like a fairly minor skirmish. The crew of pirate dhow resisted, by automatic rifle fire, the attempt by Cumberland to board the dhow. The marines returned fire, killed two of the pirates and took the ship. As the article itself says: The Royal Navy described the boarding itself as "compliant". Sorry, but with all due respect to the British Navy, this was not a "naval battle" in the sense that term is usually used. Regarding the first naval battle for the British fleet in 50 years, whatever happened to the Falklands war? Nsk92 (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the Cod War, the RN's role in the 1991 Gulf War (which included sinking much of the Iraqi Navy with attack helicopters) and the RN's role in the 2003 Iraq War (which included mounting an amphibious assault in southern Iraq and providing British forces with gunfire support). Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cod war is a misnomer there were no casualties. Secondly the only surface action fought in the falklands war was Battle of Seal Cove were extremely few shots were fired and no one died. This action is indeed the first lethal surface action britian has fought since the korean war. Thirdly the aforementioned Battle of Seal Cove is less notable than this article and yet still remains on wikipedia. XavierGreen (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information is relevant and appropriate to an article on Operation Enduring Freedom, or Somali piracy, or both. However, the action by itself is a footnote and an instance of news, and unlikely to be encyclopedic in and of itself. Otherwise, a statement that Wikipedia is not news has no meaning. RayAYang (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Piracy in Somalia is a good place to drop this information. RayAYang (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirecting to Piracy in Somalia would be fine by me. Nsk92 (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, rename, this is a bad name. Suggest Anglo-Russian anti-piracy battle (11 November 2008) 76.66.198.46 (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I like the idea for a new name. If the article is kept, the idea should be investigated further, imo. BlueVine (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but Rename, notable due to secondary media coverage and the fact that this appears to be the first naval battle that the UK has been involved in since the Falklands. The current title is really dreadful though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I am fairly sure that the British Navy participated in the first Gulf war. That aside, this particular skirmish was hardly a "naval battle", it was more akin to police action that entities like the U.S. Coast guard are routinely enaged in when, for example, arresting drug sugglers. Nsk92 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the engagement has been the engagement has been described as "the first time the Royal Navy had been engaged in a fatal shoot-out on the high seas in living memory", "signalled a new policy of maximum robustness for the Royal Navy on the high seas" [35], "believed to be the first time recently that British [naval] service personnel have been involved in a confrontation that resulted in deaths"[36], and the "first time Russian forces have moved against Somali pirates", does suggest the engagement on November 11 is sufficiently more significant than a "police action that entities like the U.S. Coast guard are routinely engaged in", so as not to fall under Nsk92's interpretation of WP:NOT#NEWS. BlueVine (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I mentioned the police action in my response to Lankiveil's post I was talking about the scope of this military enagement and the fact that calling it a "naval battle" is quite a bit of a stretch. In its scope this skirmish is quite comparable to routine enforcement actions of the U.S. Coast Guard. Things like "signalled a new policy of maximum robustness for the Royal Navy on the high seas" are worth mentioning in a newspaper article but not sufficiently significant to have an encyclopedia article about this incident yet and can be easily mentioned in the Piracy in Somalia article in a single sentence. The most interesting thing here appears to be the fact that the two Somali pirates killed were the first people killed by the British Navy on high seas in a long time (although how long a time it is not clear). This is certainly an interesting tidbit but not such an obviously significant "historical first" as to warrant a separate article now, right after the event has happened. Again, this, for the moment, is perhaps worth a sentence and a footnote in the Royal Navy article, but anything more would be crystalballing for the time being. If 6 months from now this skirmish is still viewed as a significant event, we can have an article about it then. Nsk92 (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into something like Piracy in Somalia per WP:NOT#NEWS. This topic isn't notable in isolation, and any claims that it is are crystal ball gazing at this stage. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The engagement is "the first time since the 1982 Falklands War that the Royal Navy had killed anyone on the high seas" and the "first time Russian forces have moved against Somali pirates". These claims of notabillity do not appear to be crystal-ball gazing, imo. BlueVine (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**Re-direct to Piracy in Somalia#Chronology of attacks. I have become convinced by the argument that the engagement isn't worthy of its own article, and I would like to argue that the Action of 11 November 2008 article should be re-directed to Piracy in Somalia#Chronology of attacks. I believe I have added all the relevant info from the Action article, to the Piracy in Somalia article. BlueVine (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I apologise for making another u-turn. After much consideration, I have again become convinced that the article is covering an event sufficiently significant for it not to be identified as a 'Not News' case. I know I said earlier that I would not !vote, but I can see the logic in stating my position in a very clear way.BlueVine (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly a notable news event as far as WP milhist and ships are concerned. The article is well sourced and cited. --Brad (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not notability or sourcing, but that, as of the moment, this is, as you put it, just that, a "news event" and thus is not yet deserving a separate article per the WP:NOT#NEWS policy. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but an encyclopedia. Nsk92 (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — There are a handful of articles about naval incidents off the Somali coast. These articles are all stubs and really can’t be expanded. I suggest we merge all of the articles into one page, something like “Anti-piracy engagements of the Somali coast”. The information can’t really be merged with the existing “Piracy in Somalia” page, but we can just cut and paste the existing articles into a new one. – Zntrip 20:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. The article name does not clearly identify the subject. It is notable enough to be separate from Piracy in Somalia. McWomble (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in that it is the first time Russian forces have acted agains Somali pirates. Article is well referenced. Agree it needs a better title, but that is not what this debate is about. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge, perhaps into Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa. I think most editors agree that the content ought to be preserved, but that the title is problematic (hasty historicization, if I may coin the phrase). Therefore rename to follow the convention currently in place: November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia. Albrecht (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have re-named the article "November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia". May I ask what you mean by "partial merge"? A merge entails deleting the article, and moving over all of its relevant content to another article. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot see how a partial merge can be done, unless you mean that you want the article to be kept, and relevant info from the article copied to another article (e.g. Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa) as well. BlueVine (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's right; the phrase was clumsiness on my part. I meant to say that it should be incorporated as a section in an article detailing Somalian piracy (such as Enduring Freedom), which should assuage the concern editors are expressing about a small event having delusions of grandeur—but, I'm not necessarily of the opinion that it needs to be merged in its entirety, i.e. it can conceivably keep its own entry just like any other subtopic; Jan Smuts in the Boer War, Winston Churchill in politics: 1900-1939, Battle off Samar, etc. In other words, once that happens, there's no longer any question of "recentism" or "notability;" you're simply preventing the "main article" from getting too long. Albrecht (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep retitle. Has good sources, and serious shoot-outs involving a major navy are rare. I wouldn't merge, as this article should be wiki-linked both by articles on Somali and articles on piracy, which, surprisingly to us cosy "Western" people, is still a significant threat in some areas. Whatever the title convetions are , I suggest the title should include "naval", "Somalia" and "piracy" or "pirates", as these are the likeliest search terms. --Philcha (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rename): Well referenced and the article will have the capacity to grow in time as interviews etc become available. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly a notable enough event but in the worst case merge to the Piracy in Somalia area. However, if keep an article name change is much desired. The title is very vague/unclear and may represent multiple other events then this. JForget 22:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is kept, I will start a 'New Name' discussion on the article's talk page. BlueVine (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a little more than just a news event. It's likely going to be a case study for many years in military science, especially because this sort of thing seems to be escalating. A supertanker was just seized by pirates about 500 miles off the coast of Somalia. Well-sourced, and a bit too large to merge. Squidfryerchef (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 18:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Prep Christmas Classic

Article doesn't seem to meet criteria for notability, especially in the lack of reliable sources discussing the topic. Of the references listed, three are primary sources, one of the remaining links is to the profile of a player who played in the game, not about the game itself, and the other two are possibly reliable sources but the links are registration-only so I can't determine what they are, since the ref only has an URL, no title or publisher. Proposed deletion was contested, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Raven1977 (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a non-notable high school match. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not much to add to the nom statement, a non-notable schoolboy sports tournament. If kept, needs major cleanup, as at the moment I'm not able to even tell what sport is played at this tournament. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JDOG

Delete - fails WP:BIO because of the lack of independent reliable sources that are substantively about this person. Otto4711 (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is one of the hosts of VH1's The Pick Up Artist. Mathmo ^Talk 04:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever role he may play in a TV series, he must still pass WP:BIO with reliable sources that attest to his notability. Otto4711 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources either do not work or are primary sources except for the OCRegister and News Blaze. Unless other sources are found, an article on JDOG is not warranted. A breif description of JDOG may be written on The Pick-up Artist (TV series) about JDOG, but apart from that, I would !vote delete. Billscottbob (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Pick-up Artist (TV series). The main assertion of notability in the article is for the appearance in the The Pick-up Artist (TV series). Although the article cites several sources, some are primary, others are only for factual information, and do not constitute significant coverage. The page on Newsblaze.com appears to be significant, but it is the same as http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,159571.shtml which is labelled as a press release, which I think would be a primary source. Unless more sources can be found, it does not meet the WP:BIO guidelines, and as a result deletion is an option, although it may be possible to merge some of the content, to provide a brief description as suggested by Billscottbob. —Snigbrook 00:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several mainstream articles have been written about JDOG, including one in the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/arts/television/13pick.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Sedcom (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the article is about the show. JDOG (or J-Dog as he is referred to in the article) is mentioned in one sentence. -- Swerdnaneb 14:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only trivial mentions in secondary sources. Another article in the pick-up artists' walled garden. A single article with most of these guys would be far more appropriate given the coverage that each gets. Very few pass WP:GNG, especially the significant coverage and reliable, third-party sources parts. Pcap ping 08:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age Cartoons

A vanity page for a seemingly popular animation site that cites no reliable sources of its notability. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Speedy delete Non-notable website. Now tagged as such. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the statement of how it was formed indicates some notabillity--not a speedy. let afd decide. What this needs, is looking for sources. DGG (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of substantial sources. I've had a look and can find nothing. Reyk _YO! 05:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest of keeps I cleaned up the article a bit, and there are some references. It's not much, but in the end I asked myself is the encyclopedia better or worse for including this website? And I concluded that it's better to include it than not. Seems like a good faith effort by people with a passion for old comics to cover them and make them available online. And I see no harm in including that effort on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the USA Today and Yahoo! Picks references. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love those old cartoons, and it was a sad day when Cartoon Network stopped airing them, as it was about the only place left to see them, but I haven't seen and can't find any non-trivial mention of it in the sources, all we've got are short "blurbs" so I'm sticking with my vote to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no demonstration of notability here, no Alexa rank. I find the Yahoo Picks and USA Today references, if anything, to be a red flag: these sites list multiple websites every day: tens of thousands of websites would meet such notability criteria. A mention on these three sites is the only attempt to assert notability in the article. — BillC ^talk 01:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of third-party references. A Lexis Nexis search couldn't find anything from major publications The muffin is not subtle (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources presented are almost random generator links. Add unquestionable and reliable references. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "references" mentioned do are not in depth discussions of the website. Nothing can be spotted out of the blue from a google search, and the four google news hits are not about the website. Themfromspace (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, rename Golden Age Cartoons (website) as it is all too likely to be confused with an item on the Golden Age of cartoons. 76.66.198.46 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-Upturn

No references on anything on page since April. Non-notable ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. A Google search turns up several sources such as GameFAQs, GameSpot, and the like. Sources (though maybe not reliable) exist and this is WP:V, but I would still question WP:N, hence my Neutral vote. If notability is established, I will obviously be amending my vote. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not seem to be "notable" in any way, please prove me wrong and I change my vote... SF007 (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Illegal Waste

Not notable, only sources are reviews. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews are perfectly valid sources, provided that they appear in reliable sources (such as Radio 4 or the BBC) and provide significant coverage, as these do. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 3 reliable sources that show notability are in the article. Schuym1 (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The links in the article that Schuym1 is referring to: 1 A year-end column (by someone who appears not to work for the BBC—he's a "contributor"—nor write professionally) on the BBC Tyne website (regional, mind you) that mentions—not reviews—the band (reliable? yes (reasonably so); shows notability? no) 2 A band "profile" (a reprint from their MySpace page) on the channel4 website (not really reliable, certainly not notable in the least) 3 a listing at Last.fm (neither reliable nor notable). Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hello Control and scarce relevent ghits (only a few sites and a youtube video) Billscottbob (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Hello Control and Billscottbob -- notability is too sketchy to warrant consideration. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hello Control. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. Themfromspace (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', would not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insuffcient coverage of the band to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a music promotion website doktorb _words^deeds 12:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dedirect at editorial discretion. Sandstein 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Price

This page isn't qualified for its own wiki articles for the following reasons, person is not notable. Only appearing in 4 of the episodes of the television series The OC and had a limited part in the show might i add. he pulls 2,130 google his, alot of them wiki mirrors the rest refference to the show.Parys 19:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Fully agree, this does not deserve to stay as a stand alone page. Deliciously Saucy 20:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect to a cast list - it really doesn't help that it's a crappy article. I'm half tempted to redirect it now for its near-zero content - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note This afd has been filled in February 2007 but was never listed. Listing now, not too late. Cenarium ^Talk 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, is that a record? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably the longest running afd ever discovered. But I don't know where such records are recorded... Cenarium ^Talk 22:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same place that says that I'm one of the most prolific non-admins on the project. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Politizer is after your title. 5590 edits in less than 11 weeks. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Characters_of_The_O.C. There's nothing in that article worth salvaging, except for the fact that he had a minor role on the O.C. and some non-relevant and non-sourced comments about his personal life. No harm in having a redirect, however, but I would also support deletion. Fraud ^{talk to me} 03:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Characters of The O.C., not a notable character on his own, as demonstrated above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC). Whoops, misread article. Delete based upon User:Mazca's comment below. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. A merge as described by Lankiveil and Fraudy seems like an odd choice to me considering this is an article on the actor, not the character. The character is already mentioned at List of recurring characters in The O.C.#Brad_and_Eric_Ward and is clearly extremely minor. With no other notable roles, this actor fails WP:ENTERTAINER. ~ mazca ^t|c 10:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. speedied as an obvious and blatant hoax Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Meng

This is a hoax. The University of Chicago's stats archive doesn't know his name, he didn't take part in the NBA draft 2008, and he certainly wasn't signed by the Bulls. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Absolute BS. Useless external link on the page and zero hits on Google. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 23:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a hoax. Check out User:Мэн-1. Current version. Articles exist on the Russian and Chinese Wikipedias too. — BillC ^talk 01:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Obvious hoax, as can be in proved several ways. He wasn't in the 2008 NBA Draft, for starters. Zagalejo^^^ 02:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 22:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David and the Giants

AfDs for this article:

Doesn't seem to be notable. Band's albums are at afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As nominator of previous AFD of this article. Toddst1 (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to their Allmusic entry, they have albums on Myrrh and Word (both major label Christian sub-labels) as well as Epic and CBS, though the Giant Records they released on appears to be their own label, not one of the two notable other Giants. Checking Amazon confirms this and that they also were on Priority (though I can't confirm that it's the same as this label. Passes WP:MUSIC#C5 in any case. Article needs work and references, though. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With more digging I found 3 albums on Myrrh (the album listed as being on Word in Allmusic is likely due to Myrrh being a subsidiary of Word), 2 albums on Priority, and at least 2 singles on Capitol (in their secular days). There's got to be better references for this article, it seems like an interesting story—a working rock band for almost 15 years (Little Ricky was their drummer!) goes Christian and (sort-of) hits the big time for a little while, then continues to release albums on their own. And Northern soul heads are into their secular records from the late-'60s. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The band appeared on Epic on CBS after the independent label they were on, Priority Records was bought by EMI., so it's not as if they signed a contract with CBS or Epic. It appears that they came into the EPIC/CBS with the catalog along with all the other unknown artists on Priority as well as the notable ones Priority was bought for. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know; you said that in the last AFD. First, the albums came out on Myrrh—a major label. Whether they were reissues (and I didn't find anything to indicate that they were) or not, they were released by a major label. Also, note that EMI has no connection whatsoever to CBS or Epic, so I'm not sure how you drew that connection. Second, can you provide a verifiable references from a reliable source to back up your claims? Not that it would make a difference (see "First", above), I was just curious. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are incorrect. EMI has a direct connection to Priority and Epic had a distribution deal with EMI in which Epic recordings were issued by EMI on the Columbia label before the contract with EMI expired at which point CBS Records formed a British Epic Records branch to market Epic label material. See List_of_EMI_labels and Epic Records. At the end of the day, I'd like to think that their notability was beyond just showing up in a catalog if they are truly notable. WP:MUSIC#C5 needs albums to be released on a major label - it doesn't say grandfathered. Toddst1 (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess you're right. I should have said "EMI has had no connection whatsoever to CBS or Epic since the sixties". But since the albums in question were released in the eighties, EMI's purchase of Priority does not explain how their albums ended up on Myrrh. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the skomorokh 20:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations to articles in the Peoria Journal Star, the St. Petersburg Times, the Orlando Sentinel, and the San Antonio Express-News. I'd say the coverage is significant enough for WP:MUSIC criterion #1, so I am recommending keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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