Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 3

< November 2	November 4 >

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexx Shaw

Reason rwiggam (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC) It's true, it is a resume and she hasn't made any significant contributions to her field yet and is not the foremost writer of the whitecube gallery. Google comes up with nothing compelling as well as her own page.[reply]

Delete. It fails WP:CREATIVE, as despite her work being part of a notable art gallery, it is not a substantial part of a significant exhibition, nor is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. ThePointblank (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 17:11, 7 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Reluctant Queen: The Story of Anne of York

Fails notability per WP:NB. Article has no references, contains original reserach and is no more than an overlong description of the story. Article also refers to American reprint of English book Paul75 (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete.Keep. A Google Book search turned up the book itself and this. ~~Even so, I couldn't find a single review online, so my vote is for weak. If more sources can be found, this could potentially pass WP:BK criteria #1.~~ DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found this review [1] and the abstract to a review of the audiobook version from Booklist. The article needs some work and the plot summary is a bit long but there are multiple reliable source reviews that provide critical commentary that could be added to the article to grow beyond a plot summary so it does just pass WP:BK. Here is the Booklist review:
- Hartshorn, Laurie. "Audiovisual media: Audiobooks." Booklist 91.19/20 (June 1995): 1804. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Captain-tucker. Everyking (talk) 00:38, 7 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. Cirt (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CrushConnect

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. The software seems to be entirely non-notable. Schuym1 (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable sources found. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 00:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All resources I could find were just copies of Wikipedia. Non-notable WP:WEB. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:12, 4 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 and redirect to The Constantines. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulder (band)

No demonstration of notability. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third party sources. Ancemy (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for any?????? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C6. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Shoulder features two members of The Constantines Bryan Webb and Doug Macgregor signed to Sub Pop, internationally known touring, reviews, music videos, etc. They also were on the indie label Conquer The World Records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.93.71 (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:MUSIC, per above. I see no compelling reason to not follow the usual standards in this case. Wily D 13:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the nomination and WP:MUSIC#C6, there are no real third party sources in this article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable in and of itself, WP:MUSIC#C6 does not cover this at all --T-rex 17:08, 8 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 per WP:A7. It was already deleted when I was closing this AfD. (non-admin closure) ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Madigan Hoen

Non-notable. Only ref is from Spin, and that is not sourced. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Looks like self-promotion, notability definitely not established, and lack of reliable third party sources. In other words, I agree with the nominator, and speedy delete is justified.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Tagged as such. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD A7 it is. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:34, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts of Ionesco

No demonstration of notablility. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third party sources. Ancemy (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let me think about this...hmmm. I don't think so. My rhinoceros also disagrees, noting problems with WP:MUSIC. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:14, 5 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. May be recreated when and if sources become available to substantiate notability. JodyB_talk 16:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D&D Precision Tools

Unreferenced, unable to verify anything about the company —Snigbrook 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third party sources. Ancemy (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per model nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is - Dave Gonzalez is a stub article from Gary Lewis & the Playboys '60's rock and roll band - DonDeigo (talk) 17: 28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep as is - Dave Gonzalez can be verified by Gary himself on Gary's web site - DonDeigo (talk) 17: 22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep as is - D&D Precision Tools can be verified on the reference section under Dunn & Bradstreet - DonDeigo (talk) 17: 22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep as is - References - Nowlin, Bill. The Kid

Ted Williams in San Diego. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Rounder Books, 2005. ISBN 1579400949. Discusses Williams' early life and extensively documents his ancestry, including reference to David Gonzalez.

Delete - there is no coverage about this company in reliable sources that would establish notability. Note that Dunn and Bradstreet would only verify the existence of the company and not establish any notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is - Dunn & Bradstreet confirms company existance and financial performance rating; D&D was a menber of the National Tooling & Machining Association, Society of Manufacturing Engineers and the Lions Club International.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonDeigo (talk • contribs)

Delete - per whpq. Wizard191 (talk) 18:29, 6 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. Cirt (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricketwrist

This looks like a hoax. The references cited do not support the text: the second has no mention of it; the first is about toxicodendron radicans or poison ivy but makes no mention of "ricketwrist". We also draw a blank in Google and Google Scholar. The author Yalebotanicalsociety (talk · contribs) has no other edits. At best, it is unsourced. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does seem to meet WP:HOAX. Google turns up zero references, and cited sources do not relate to subject. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prune or rather, Delete - I agree this seems like a hoax. The article is also written in an improper tone. Ancemy (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax. I could find nothing on a botany club at the University of Denver [2] or on a Yale Botanical Society [3]. Sources do not back up text. - Atmoz (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:15, 5 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) Icewedge (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Banks

Article subject fails WP:MUSIC. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should also include the nn artist's 2 albums for deletion. See. Last Drinks in Derry and Mnemonics.

Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep international touring = passes WP:MUSIC. Nomination is demonstrably false, leaving me with no motivation to delete, but "passes usual notability standards" to keep, making keep a much stronger argument. Wily D 22:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He hasn't attracted much mainstream coverage, but the international appearances are verifiable. I found an announcement from the University of Ulster and this listing in the Belfast Telegraph that confirmed he performed in Northern Ireland. Allmusic has a listing for his 2008 album but not for the 2005 album, but no biography. Classical Guitar Magazine has a web site but not the full text, so that verifying the quote from that magazine would require access to a printed copy of the issue in question. This reference shows that he has also performed in Tasmania, another state in Australia. This search shows that he performed with an orchestra in Perth, West Australia. I think the international appearances are enough to pass WP:MUSIC and demonstrate notability, despite the absence of reviews. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiably notable. Hesperian 00:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:MUSIC#C4. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per eastmain and hesperian - eastmains refs need to be included in article. Satu Suro 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies WP:MUSIC and is verifiably notable. Dan arndt (talk) 00:57, 5 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. Cirt (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ProQuake

Contested prod (two tags), reasons were No assertion of notability (Wp:N), no references (WP:V) and I can't find any third-party sources either. Procedural nomination, no opinion from my side. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 21:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third party sources. Ancemy (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:52, 6 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 JodyB_talk 16:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobered

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

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

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

Violates WP:NAD, because it is a guide to a slang word. Ships at a Distance (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, the spread of this word beyond some high school students has yet to be demonstratod. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This word cannot be deleted on the premise that there really is no other way to accommodate the rise of a term that has spawned from a reliable source and whose existence can be proved on the basis of several true sources. Reliv1908 (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC) — Reliv1908 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: An encyclopedia should not be limited to events, people, and locations, it needs to all-inclusive so that anyone who needs to refer to the information has a source on that information and learn about everything there is to know. Additionally the article is not a dictionary term, but a description of a word that includes everything from its birth to its significance, the same format as that of a biography of a human being. Cardsfan06 (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC) — Cardsfan06 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete looks like something that was made up one day by a group of friends in school. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bober it means three totally different things than this article suggests. To me, this is a student trying for his 15 minutes fame. Peridon (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to prove that this isn't some random term without notability and without significance. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and borderline speedy (G3) per WP:NFT and WP:HOAX. MuZemike (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be WP:HOAX, a search finds no reference of the term outside of WP. Even if there was such a word, it would fail WP:NEO. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete and FYI I deleted the "Origin of the Word" section because it purported to mention two non-notable high-school students by name and therefore I felt it has WP:BLP issues. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like to give the benefit of the doubt but I couldn't find any sort of reliable source for this. --Banime (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per most everybody. Edward321 (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NFT. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:00, 4 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 to delete, default to keep. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Guy with the Glasses

Internet celebrity for whom very little evidence of said notability could be found. 63 distinct Google hits for hios most famous creation[4], most (if not all- from forums, blogs, youtube, .... No reliable sources, news reports, ... Similar results for his other claim to notability[5] No evidence could be found that any WP:RS has ever commented on this celebrity, or that he meets WP:NOTE. Fram (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient coverage by reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I got 58.800Google hits on "nostalgia critic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.176.199.204 (talk • contribs)
- ...which aren't that impressive in terms of reliability. WillOakland (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 134.176.199.204 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep, but significantly restructure it. I also got a significant amount of Google hits for "Nostalgia Critic." He is notable enough to have been interviewed by reliable sources, such as Revision3[6], Cory Lemay[7] and The Game Heroes[8].--Brad M. (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep, I am changing my vote to a keep from Redirect, as long as the NC's cites the aforementioned links from Brad, which seem to offer enough material to make a small, yet substantial article. The article needs some work, but looks salvageable. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 00:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per NawlinWiki's comment.--Boffob (talk) 20:53, 3 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell, he fails to meet criteria for inclusion. He seems to get a lot of traction in the blogs and on lots of minor sites, but that isn't the policy. As for the 3 "reliable sources" listed above, 1 is his own website and the other 2 are questionable as passing wp:rs as independent sources (one is broke right now) PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 23:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the link to the original source of that interview on Handsom Tom's Youtube channel [9] which should put that concern to rest. Now to your issues with reliability. Wikipedia thought Revision3, Martin Sargent, Internet Superstar were notable enough to have articles for each of them. And Cory Lemay is a reliable indpendent source, I would reccommend a google search to verify that for yourself.--Brad M. (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notable is not the same thing as being a reliable source. Myspace and Blogger.com are other examples of notable sites that are not reliable sources. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 00:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sources I provided are reliable as well.--Brad M. (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... sorta. While not as famous as, say, The Angry Video Game Nerd, he should still have an article, just not as expansive, since he is a rather minor, but important, internet celebrity.
Note The afd notice has been removed from the page by an anon user. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:48, 7 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh and Blood (Star Trek: Voyager)

This article covers an episode of Star Trek: Voyager; it has no evidence of receiving significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and is wholly constitutive of plot.

I originally simply tagged this article with {{unreferenced}} and {{notability}} on 2007-07-22, further replacing some or all of the tags on 2007-08-22, 2007-09-11, 2007-09-24, 2007-08-09, 2008-08-18, and again today; reversions included arguments detailing other Star Trek articles, and silent edit summaries by Damifb (talk · contribs), OneOfNine (talk · contribs), Platypus222 (talk · contribs), and Wizardman (talk · contribs).

Failing improvement with maintenance tags (and due to their repeated removal w/o cause), I also redirected the article to it's correlative episode list on 2007-11-15, 2007-11-29, and 2008-10-05 citing lack of reliable sources and evidence of notability; those redirections were also summarily reverted by GenkoKitsu (talk · contribs) with an unsummarized undo, by Platypus222 (talk · contribs) summarizing "restoring from redirect -- literally every other voyager episode is notable enough to have a page; I think we'll be ok with this one", and by 91.109.229.104 (talk · contribs) summarizing that "[...] it's an improper use of redirect, if you don't like the content then go through AFD to delete the content and turn it into a redirect. if the page isn't worthy you'll win AFD"

I've explained in detail on the article's talk page rationales for my edits and actions, and have received no replies or input from the aforementioned involved editors and IPs. I've been pointed to WP:AfD by both User:Wizardman and User:91.109.229.104 despite my rationale for maintaining the article's history through redirection. Fourteen months after I originally tagged this page as lacking basic tenants of an article, I'm acquiescing and nominating this page for deletion at the direction of others. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect page to list of Star Trek: Voyager episodes pending the sources and initiative to improve the article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to episode list and protect. I have no doubt that Star Trek related material has a high chance of being notable, but episode articles should contain more than just plot details and cotain references. This article does neither. Try reading an article about a Doctor Who episode for comparison of what else should be included in such articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple sources available for all star treckepisodes, and they've been cited in other articles. since they've all been discussed by RSs, they are every one of them notable.DGG (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, it'll probably eventually be brought up to par, and in the interim, until such evidentiary elusive initiative and sourcing is found, it's fine as is? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, please read WP:IMPERFECT. DHowell (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG Not much of a Voyager fan, but 'm afraid this is notable. Dloh cierekim 23:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We can't just pick and choose episodes to have articles on as this renders an incomplete set. Trek is a major franchise and therefore there is ample sources of discussion regarding every episode. If there is a content issue, then WP:BOLD applies. 23skidoo (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been bold; I've also been reverted nine times for tagging and redirecting this page, being instead twice pointed to take it to AfD since the article's obviously just fine. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you done same with the 100 other Voyager episode articles, or just this one? My point being we can't pick and choose from a set - all or none. And if it has been established that a series is notable enough to warrant individual articles for episodes (as is the case with Doctor Who and the other 4 Trek series) then pulling out one by itself just doesn't make sense. And last I looked there is no Wiki policy that as yet prohibits these sorts of articles in general. This being Star Trek there are plenty of books and other sources touching on every series, not to mention websites (at least the latter when Wikipedia updates its Website-acceptance criteria to meet 2008 reality). 23skidoo (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Saying we can't pick and choose from a set is a preposterous claim. You're saying that an album with only one or two songs that meet the articular inclusion policies and guidelines should either have articles on all or none of its songs? A city with only a few schools that meet our inclusion criteria should either have articles on all or none of its schools? A prominent newsmaker with only one or two children who meet our inclusion criteria should either have articles on all or none of his or her children? That's ridiculous, seriously.
      Where, exactly, has it been "established" that notability is inherited? As for choosing any single Wikipedia article based upon its own metits for redirection or deletion does, actually, make sense—it's done every day.
      Last you looked there's no English Wikipedia policy regarding ... What Wikipedia is not? The notability or reliable sourcing guidelines?
      True, there are a lot of relable, secondary sources for a lot of Star Trek. Whether there are for this particular episode: for the last 14 months there has been no effort or interest in this article except for reverting my {{notability}} and {{reliable sources}} tagging (and deftly ignoring that particular page's discussion tab). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let me put it another way. Let's say you have three articles: Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, Return of the King. For whatever reason, The Two Towers is deleted. Ergo the set is broken. There is no difference between one book of 3 being deleted or one episode of 26 if all 26 have had articles done that have withstood the test of time. Until Wikipedia outright prohibits individual episode articles -- and I know it's heading that way -- the current standard is that television series with extensive third-party coverage such as all the Star Trek series, Doctor Who, and a number of others -- are notable enough to justify individual episode articles, whereas shows with less extensive coverage such as, say, the original Mission: Impossible which only has one book on the subject, do not justify individual episode articles and thus a list article or section is warranted. That is at present not the case here under current policy. 23skidoo (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        On the other hand, cleanup must start somewhere, and it's doubtful that suggestions to merge/redirect all ST episode articles at once are going to get received well either. (You're right about other stuff though.) – sgeureka ^t•c 08:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect until someone actually establishes WP:NOTABILITY (enough time has been given), possibly protect to end continued disruption (patient good-faith cleanup obviously didn't work). Otherwise, this article is just a plot-only article (WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF), and the LoE (or a season article) can cover the plot just fine. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The episode does not establish notability, so it doesn't require an article. TTN (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:40, 1 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per pd_THOR I don't see a typical show (which no-one has asserted this to be otherwise) is notable. There is no "best", "first", "influenced" etc. Personally I think it detracts from the groundbreaking shows that should have articles. Dimitrii (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination is beyond silly. It's simply the case that every Star Trek episode has enough independent sources to establish it's notability. This kind of perverse attempt to twist notability to "What should ethically be notable" has to be a nonstarter, per NPOV. Sorry. WilyD 21:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I really have no idea what you're referring to with "beyond silly", "ethical notability", or "NPOV" here. Could you have misread either this page or another and replied in the wrong place? I'm serious and not intentionally adversarial saying that, I just don't see any connection with those comments and this discussion.
  However, to reply to the issue of sourcing and notability, this article has neither and hasn't for over a year. Further, I'm not familiar with any decision or community consensus that "every Star Trek episode has enough independent sources to establish it's notability." The majority don't evidence this, in particular the one we're discussing here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Pretty much ever Star Trek episode I know of has reliable secondary sources and analysis of it somewhere, even if its only ratings and critical reception. That this article doesn't have them is something that needs to be fixed, but is not grounds for deletion or redirect. It should be kept so more reference digging can be done. Ancemy (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and send discussion back to the talk page, as this is Articles for deletion, not "Articles for redirection or merging". Both Wizardman and 91.109.229.104 were incorrect for suggesting the discussion be sent here to AfD. No one, not even the nominator, is actually arguing for deletion—this shouldn't have been brought here in the first place, and it certainly shouldn't have been relisted when it was clear that there was no existing argument for deletion. AfD is not a court of appeals to go to when other discussion fora fail to reach consensus. AfD is not a part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Bringing merge or redirect proposals to AfD is forum shopping, and it also unfairly biases the discussion towards merge/redirect due to the decoy effect of the inferior but available option to delete, as a merge or redirect would be seen as clearly preferable to a deletion, whereas the choices between deletion vs. keep or merge vs. keep or redirect vs. keep might not be as clear. We have WP:Proposed mergers and WP:RFC for getting more outside input if talk page discussion fails to gain consensus or sufficient input. The nominator could have also gotten wider input at Talk:List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes, Talk:Star Trek: Voyager, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. By the way, the nominator is also incorrect about the unavailablity of reliable secondary sources: Both Star Trek Voyager Companion and Star Trek 101 contain detailed information about individual episodes of Star Trek: Voyager. DHowell (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are arguments being made to delete. A redirect vote is tantamount to a delete vote in that it removes the article from the normal presentation of the encyclopedia. It doesn't remove the history which is good if someone is able to finally able to find something to write about the subject that is not just WP:Plot "Plot summaries. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." Remember this is policy.
  The nominator has tried to get someone to improve the article for a long time with no success. As it is the content other than info boxes is solely in violation of policy. Waiting isn't working. Dimitrii (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - AfD is for requests to delete an article and its entire edit history. A redirect can be made without deleting the edit history. Deleting the edit history requires an administrator. Replacing the article with a redirect does not. AfD exists because it requires an adminstrator to perform the delete if there is consensus to do so. A redirect can be performed by anyone, and if there is controversy it can be discussed many other places besides AfD. This is also policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." We also have a guideline that says "Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research." To borrow the words of Uncle G, "What we want is for such articles not to come to AFD in the first place. There's enough work to do at AFD with things that really do need an administrator to press a delete button." As far as "trying to get someone to improve the article with no success"—Wikipedia is not about getting other people to do the work you think ought to be done. It is about collaboration to improve what can be improved. I've shown that there is reliable source material available to cover many details (plot as well as non-plot) about most, if not all, episodes of Star Trek: Voyager. If you are unwilling yourself to use these sources to improve the article then get out of the way so others can. There is no deadline and we allow articles with potential to improve, no matter how long it takes. DHowell (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Episode is notable.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 17:11, 8 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. Black Kite 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Plowman Jr.

Jonanthan Plowman fails the Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria for Politicians Though the article has been corrected many times, it still seems merely a paean to an ancestor. Being a town commissioner in Eighteenth Century Baltimore is not notability. There are a number of sources many of which are misleading. In none of the reliable sources is Jonathan Plowman more than just a name. Only three pages link to it:

John Stevenson (doctor) created by the same person as the Plowman article. The Stevenson article also reads like a paean.

Baltimore where the sentence seems contrived to make a link.

George Washington where in the context of the paragraph Baltimore merchant could be easily substituted for Plowman.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GcSwRhIc (talk • contribs)

Comment This is a defective AFD, since it points to a disambiguation page for the name "Jonathan" rather than the intended Jonathan Plowman Jr.. Please fix it rather than !voting on deletion of the disambiguation page. Edison (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have fixed it to point to the article in question. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of references to old minor legal documents (land records, etc) and some genealogy. Many refs point to relatives or to historical events in which Plowman was involved only incidentally. Owning land and having descendants does not make one notable. Rklear (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep on the basis of what seems to have been equivalent to member of the city council of a major city at the time. DGG (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was also one of the leading traders in indentured servants in the colonies. Enough references to support article even if mentions are not extensive. "Jonathan Plowman" baltimore gets 49 gbooks hits.John Z (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reliable reference to him as a leading colonial trader in indentured servants, though the article makes that claim. The Park Service reference only states that in the 1750s and 1760s, he and another man were the leading suppliers to Hampton Plantation in Baltimore County. Nothing beyond that. The book hits on Google only reinforce that lack of notability. None are more than a mention as a merchant or as part of a larger list of names. Even Scharf’s Chronicles of Baltimore makes very few references.GcSwRhIc (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a town commissioner in a major city. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Baltimore in the 1760's and early 1770's was not a major city. GcSwRhIc (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its Wikipedia article describes it as a large port city at this time. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article does not describe it as a major port city at the time. All it says is that it grew rapidly in the Eighteenth Century which is the truth. Most of the growth occured after Plowman's death (1776 not 1795 as the article states). I spent 4 hours at the Maryland room of the Enoch Pratt Library trying find notability. Plowman is a footnote. Almost all the family information in the article is incorrect. He came from England in 1758. He was a town commissioner in 1768. He signed the nonimportation agreement as did almost all the other merchants in town. No mention of him in any public office or in public affairs after 1774. His 1776 will is in the Baltimore County will book. The was apparently a lengthy battle over his estate. In the 100 years of the Maryland Historical Magazine his name appears about a dozen or so times. They are minor mostly in connection with his business dealings or a land survey.GcSwRhIc (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable politician and merchant. Someone has pulled together something that might make for an interesting pamphlet at a historical society. What has been assembled, however, argues at great length that this sort of figure is in fact not notable; he comes across as a sort of colonial merchant-class Everyman. Town councilmen are notable? It doesn't appear so-- not unless they commit memorable sins in office. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:N without difficulty, as the subject of independent, reliable coverage. Misunderstanding of notability aside, there's simply no argument for deletion, which "passes WP:N" is a fairly strong argument for keeping. Wily D 21:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between being mentioned in sources and having sources that talk specifically about you. Plowman doesn't appear to be the subject of coverage so much as he is incidental to it. Rklear (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the coverage received doesn't quite reach the level of "non-trivial" we're looking for with respect to biographical works. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep I wrote the article in question. Yes I am not an expert at writing the entry, but deletion is not warranted. Jonathan Plowman Jr. is an example of first how much opportunity abound in America as a son of an indentured Servant. Secondly he played a crucial part of the Baltimore City Council including being part of Revolutionary City Council. He was crucial in expanding Baltimore and well known in the colonies. George Washington interceded with the British on his behalf in 1771 to help him recoup a impounded ship which was part of the British oppression that lead to the Revolution. He even had a warrant for his arrest for having signed a petition objecting to British blocking the citizens of Baltimore from easy access to vote for their own city leaders. He is also in the National Park Service historical notes as being the leading importer of indentured Servants into America during the 1750's and 1760's. The man as a whole was part of the backbone that made the city of Baltimore and leader in both colonial and Revolutionary times. Part of the secret network that spied on British movement as well. In end, please don't delete. Consider cleaning it up, but don't delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.146.118 (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, he is not Jonathan Plowman Jr. but just plain Jonathan Plowman an English merchant who arrived in Baltimore in 1758. Two, he was only a major supplier to one plantation (Hampton) according to the Park Service. His will is in the 1776 Baltimore County will book so he couldn’t have done anything significant during the Revolution His marriage to Rebecca Arnold in 1761. Their three children baptized at the First Presbyterian Church, none of whom old enough to participate in the revolution. Lastly it was a town commission not a city council. An important distinction which not only is reflected in the size of the population at the time, but in the limited powers of the commission. Commissioners were appointed for life. In fact a “revolutionary council” did in fact occur in 1781 when the town commissioners of the time acceded to an elected board. The first elected government in Baltimore. All of this after Plowman’s death. You want the article cleaned up. I looked at the sources. I could do it. It would probably be 30 -40% of its current size with accurate citations. The resulting article would be factually correct. The problem is being a merchant which primarily is what Plowman was is not notable in itself. I know a warehouse of his blew up in Annapolis, and it made the Boston papers. It was news worthy only because warehouses don’t often blow up not because the owner was notable. The same criterion applies to the George Washington letter. Merely being mentioned by name in the correspondence of a famous person does not make one notable. The whole connection to a secret network seems like some sort of anecdotal story handed down through a family. The man certainly left a historical footprint. One that is larger than Joe the miller’s, but that is to be expected of a successful merchant whose name may appear in business receipts or correspondence. His actions in the public life of his town are few. He helped found the First Presbyterian Church in 1763 and was on its board until 1774. He is mentioned as being on the town commission starting in 1768, but I can’t find a definite answer as to when he left it. He was still on it in 1773 and there is no mention of him at all after 1774 (excluding probate related). He signed the non importation agreement, but as nearly every merchant did either out of patriotism or peer pressure, that alone isn’t particularly notable. On the eve of the Revolution in 1774 he was appointed to a committee of correspondence but not as one of the more important representatives to Annapolis. Such committees were appearing in towns up and down the colonies. It was patriotic service but again not particularly notable. I don’t want to denigrate the man. He was successful merchant, a faithful servant of his church, did public service in his town and was probably a good family man. I just believe he fails WP:BIO. GcSwRhIc (talk) 23:28, 6 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. Delete arguments have the upperhand as mostly based on policy reasons. DGGs was the strongest keep argument but lacked sources. The asserted google sources were discounted as challenged and merely an assertionof sources rather then specific ones Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Jones

Character who primarily appeared in one movie (Chasing Amy) made a cameo in two others. No secondary sources to support notability IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 17:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same criteria:

Keep A Google Search shows that there is plenty of information available about Alyssa Jones. Sources can be added to support notability. (Meanwhile you could consider the verify tag?) Anti venin 18:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of those search results do not talk about Alyssa independently; she is simply mentioned as the main character in synopses. Also, it's been stated that WP:GHITS should be avoided in discussions for deletion. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 18:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That google search by itself doesn't prove a thing unless you're prepared to pull some decent hits from it. Sift through all of the trivial mentions, cast lists, eshops, etc. and I'll bet there isn't nearly as much there as you think. PC78 (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into View Askewniverse, which has a list of Kevin Smith characters. With the exception of Jay and Silent Bob, these characters aren't notable enough to merit articles on their own. Alyssa Jones is nothing more than plot synopsis, and Holden McNeil is barely that. Rklear (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the major characters of an important film. There should be sufficient sources in the reviews, as she could hardly not have been mentioned. DGG (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What reviews...? Movie reviews mention *all* of the characters... IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 02:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we just presuming here, or can you provide links to any reviews that offer substantial coverage? PC78 (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both per Rklear. These articles are just plot summary with no evidence of real-world notabilty. PC78 (talk) 16:07, 30 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. No evidence of real world notability. McWomble (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both along with the other character articles on View_Askewniverse#Notable_characters. Issues with individual WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF, but a character list is a good middleground. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. There's not a whiff of a claim of real world notability for this character.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An obvious keep. Amelia Nymph (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An obvious delete: no real-world influence, no major discussions outside of plot synopsis, etc. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rklear. JuJube (talk) 11:56, 8 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC) good soccer player[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mick Burns. That other article about the same man is in better shape. Sandstein 23:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Burns (footballer)

Was deleted as non-notable a few months ago, and right now is very short. Clark89 (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of material deleted via discussion. There is no evidence the person has actually played in the league yet.--Boffob (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he plays for the team, fair enough, improve the article. However, neither [10] nor[11] mention him, so delete. Emeraude (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy: the deleted version was altogether different from this. However, there's no demonstration of notability, of the truth of the article, so no reason to keep this. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above arguments, but almost more importantly, the person who made the page didn't even take the time to write a proper sentence!!! Firebat08 (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is perfectly okay that it was created with less than a sentence (policy says be bold, and they are a newbie too), it's that we don't have anything here to work with, anything that might be worth keeping. Clark89 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he still fails WP:ATHLETE for the same reason as the last deletion, i.e. has not played. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, that is a nothing article. Who is it? What's the reference? Gawrsh...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no info contained or proof he has played a professional game. Skitzo (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I am not sure who the original article was about so I have rewritten it about a notable footballer, of the same name, who meets WP:Athlete having played in a fully professional league. Smile a While (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note the change of content since the previous, wholly correct, delete!votes. Smile a While (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - article is now about notable footballer; this is no longer the same person who was subject of the earlier AfD. Nfitz (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bio that has been added already exists at Mick Burns. Tassedethe (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely that would simply be a redirect then. Especially as his fullname is "Michael Thomas Burns". Nfitz (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But if he is known as Mick Burns then it should stay at that name, as WP:COMMONNAME would apply. This reference is much more authoritative than the brief references on the Michael Burns page. He is also referred to as Mick Burns on this PNE website and this Newcastle website. Tassedethe (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that Nfitz was suggesting that Michael redirect to Mick, not the other way round.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oops... yeah then that would be fine.Tassedethe (talk) 20:39, 8 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. sources are slightly tengential but there seems enough to make this a notable footnote Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Preservation of Beers from the Wood

Non-notable organization. The only source is the organization's website. Only 111 hits [12], most from the organization's website, some branches of the same, Wiki and Wiki mirrors. No reliable sources apparent, fails WP:V, WP:ORG. RGTraynor 19:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources are independent. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a known organisation in the UK, and well known in beer circles, and will have been written about in numerous sources. I can recall reading articles on the society in The Independent and The Guardian newspapers. These books mention or write directly about the organisation. I will work in some refs later. SilkTork *^YES! 08:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable UK activist organisation. Not as big or famous as CAMRA, perhaps, but notable in the same field. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My first thought on seeing the nomination was that it was a Society for the Preservation of Bears from the Wood. But this consumer organisation seems to meet the basic notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the reasons above notedOo7565 (talk) 23:08, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centrozoon

Not Wikipedia notable. Although the word "Centrozoon" is mentioned at guitarplayer.com, there does not appear to be enough reliable, secondary published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 14:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of passing WP:Music --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending update - I am preparing an update of this article including a significant expansion of content and review quotes, supported by external links and references. Please hold off on deletion until I have completed this (within the week). - Dann Chinn (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove from deletion list - I have now rewritten the article in greater depth, including quotes from reviews and have included references wherever possible. Please remove from deletion list. - Dann Chinn (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, None of the sources are are really reliable, and the reviews aren't even long. Unless reliable sources can be found, my unwavering opinion is delete. _David ^WS _(contribs) 20:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your assertion of "unreliability". The reviews were selected as being from established electronic music publications or music review sources (if not necessarily glossy print publications) and ones found on music sales sites were weeded out even if they were more interesting in terms of content. As for the question of "the reviews aren't even long", what relevance does that have? The review quotes were trimmed (where possible) for the sake of brevity and selected for pertinence and information. (As some reviews were actually quite boring if quoted at greater length, I've done the reader a favour...- Dann Chinn (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:N. You actually want the whole thing showing, because the reader is reading the article, not the sources. Coverage has to be non-trivial, and those seemed trivial. Regardless, everyone here is entitled to their own opinion. _David ^WS _(contribs) 00:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have checked WP:N and we appear to be in a grey area here. The majority of sources quoted (including all reviews) are independent of centrozoon themselves and don't appear to fail the criteria for secondary sources. NPOV has been maintained by quoting those reviews which criticised the band's approach and achievement. Defining the coverage of the subject as "trivial" is a subjective matter - admittedly one which becomes particularly subjective when dealing with the uneasy field of music criticism. As mentioned previously, quoting each review in its entirety would involve too much repetition and not benefit the reader. All reviews quoted were therefore abridged to their pertinent descriptive and analytical points (admittedly some were shorter than others) and are easily linked to via the reference links provided, if the reader is sufficiently interested in pursuing them to read the entire text. It's true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but a "delete" vote is significantly stronger than a simple opinion - and, with respect, David, I don't believe that you've made a case for deletion here. (Incidentally, other reviews and coverage of centrozoon exist online in languages other than English, but I've refrained from adding references to or quoting from them in translation until I'm more sure of the Wikipedia position on, for example, subjectively corrected AltaVista translations.) - Dann Chinn (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:33, 1 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, MBisanz ^talk 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with concerts in the UK and Germany (as I understand it) passes WP:MUSIC. Wily D 21:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've personally programmed and broadcast music by this group on a number of occasions, on the nationally-syndicated weekly FM radio show which I produce. They are certainly notable. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:47, 7 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) 05:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Val Daly

Doubtful notability (Google search turned up sporadic third-party sources), and article consists almost entirely of badly-written and unsourced POV. No effort has been made to improve it in the time since it was first posted. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 06:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE (see here) though it needs drastic improvement and fixing to pass WP:NPOV. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ In it's current form it doesn't pass WP:VER or WP:NPOV. Per DarthPanda the subject appears to pass BIO, so absolutely no prejudice to recreation if it is resubmitted (or reworked) with these issues addressed. Guliolopez (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Better to keep and improve than to delete, as a previous deletion may dishearten another page creator. DARTH PANDA^duel 19:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I'm not sure I agree. We can really only comment on the notability/VER/worthiness of the current content. And, per your own comment, the current content doesn't pass the relevant guidelines. (There isn't a single source validating claims made - could be hoax for all I know.) On the point that "a delete may dissuade possible recreators". I'm not sure that's really a problem we should be concerning ourselves with. If the deletion log notes "no bias to recreation if properly sourced", then it shouldn't be an issue. That said, if you feel like fixing the issues I'll happily change my vote. But right now (given the VER issues) it's still "delete". Guliolopez (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To quote WP:DEL, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Therefore, this page should be kept and fixed. DARTH PANDA ^duel 22:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK. I have removed all the inappropriate commentary and NPOV chatter and weasel words about how "he is regarded as a great footballer", etc. As well as the (frankly) irrelevant stuff about what managers he played under, and the equally inappropriate commentary and related nonsense about various periods representing "famine and underachievement", "bruising encounters", etc. All that remains therefore is that "he was a football player who won several championships and an All Star". Based on these changes I have struck out my "delete vote" - but still can't recommend a keep. Because there isn't a single supporting cite. Not a one. Guliolopez (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:13, 1 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, MBisanz ^talk 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator themselves already claimed "Google search turned up sporadic third-party sources" In other words there is chance of improvement. I basically agree with Darth Panda, guidelines and policy generally support the view that "bad in its current state" is not a valid reason for deletion. I suggest we drop the entry off at a relevant project and give it a few more weeks to improve. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:12, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Watson

If you came here because of http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/index.php?topic=15283.75, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

This article relies almost entirely on primary sources, falling back on other blogs, podcasts and youtube videos to fill in the gaps. WP:BLP article which has not attracted any significant coverage from reliable third parties (emphasis on the "reliable" part). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of possible canvassing and the mention of this AfD at skepchick.org

NOTE This discussion is attracting votes from the site skepchick.org, where skepchickers are calling wikipedians (specially yours truly) "dicks", "idiot" and "fucktard" and other nasty adjectives. --Damiens.rf 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the thread mentioned above isn't attracting votes from non-wikipedians. It's specifically stated in that thread that people who wouldn't otherwise get involved shouldn't do so. And "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments", no matter who makes them. Ole Eivind (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note After three revisions to this state this editor (Damiens.rf) has violated the 3RR --Brendan White (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User above is blocked. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nothing in this note section is relevant in any way shape of form to the notability of the article it should be moved--Brendan White (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has previously been reported at the administrative noticeboards. Moving AfD comments is tricky. I suggest, from now on, you leave the moving of comments in this AfD to the admins. In my opinion the above comments are germane, per WP:CANVASS. The AfD closer is allowed take them into account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For canvasing reasons I totally accept that it should be noted and is relevant, thats the purpose of the not a ballot tag to my knowledge, what is irrelevant is the name calling. Wikipedia does not have any rules regarding the civility of discussions that take place offwiki and that portion of his comment, the portion not covered, is why it should be moved to the discussion section, along with this discussion. A note expounding on the tag would also be acceptable, not a discussion of how he has earned himself a great deal of dislike --Brendan White (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Collapse Ed --Brendan White (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Talk:Rebecca Watson/Archive 1#Notability offers some reliable third party sources to establish notability. At least one of them is properly cited in the main article itself. But yes, the cites in the article need cleanup.--Boffob (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is an effort by her friends to promote her. Not notable outside her small clique. --Damiens.rf 19:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If she was notable only in her clique she wouldn't be asked to be a speaker at the same conference as Michael A. Stackpole. Also, she's bloody got an article in The Boston Globe. The references definitely need cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A winner of an NPR contest, an invited speaker to a major conference, subject of several major newspaper articles, founder of a notable group, written for a commercial magazine. Clearly notable within the skepticism movement. Mindme (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This here says it all: Talk:Rebecca_Watson#Notability. There are major third-party reliable sources about Rebecca Watson. Articles in The Boston Globe and Skeptical Inquirer, among several other papers/magazines, demonstrate notability beyond doubt. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several dead-tree media sources listed on the talk page (The Boston Globe should be pretty reliable). Watson is easily one of the most well known women within the skeptical movement (which isn't just her small clique). Founder of a notable organization. Co-host of the SGU, a notable podcast which is one of the most popular science podcasts on iTunes. Winner of the PRTQ. Spoken at The New Humanism conferece and the notable The Amaz!ng Meeting. Guest on other notable podcasts. She even has an astroid named after her! References should be cleaned up, but primary sources are here used to show history within a project, other dead-tree sources can show that these projects exist and are notable. Ole Eivind (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed some of the first-party sources with reliable third-party sources now. More can be done, but there can be no doubt Rebecca Watson is notable. Ole Eivind (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability well established via third party sources. If they name a celestial body after you, you're likely to be notable - Jeez. Wily D 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that most of the resources are from blogs and youtube has no bearing on the fact that some of the resources are notable dead tree media and she does have a large following of tens of thousands, not a small clique by any means.--129.19.136.103 (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see the Boston Globe as one of the sources, and there are a couple other non-trivial sources cited. That's enough. (As usual if there is anything really dangerous under BLP, then remove it). This could almost be seen as a test case for demonstrating how outdated Wikipedia's notability standards are with regards to blogs, YouTube, etc. News flash: pretty soon there are likely to be more so-called "trivial" sources than "traditional" sources as more people decide to bypass traditional print in favor of blogs they can do themselves. 23skidoo (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that wont's undermine the value of peer reviewed publications. Don't hold your breath to see FDA accept spammail advertisements as valid sources of drugs information. And until there, we will vehemently deny self-published blogs/youtubos/podcasts as reliable sources. --Damiens.rf 04:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man. Nobody was talking about peer reviewed journals and scientific papers. Only that if you're going to write about a podcast or blog, the podcast/blog itself will obviously be a very important source. We're not even saying it should be the only source (we have several newspaper articles), and we're not using other blogs as sources for what skepchick has done. But, for example, a good source for claiming that skepchick have sold skepdude calendars since 2007 is to link to the actual pages where they sold them. It's kinda obvious. A good source for what a blog post said is to show the actual blog post. We've clearly shown Watson is notable, and first-hand sources are only used to demonstrate the history of her projects, the projects themselves are written about in newspaper articles. Ole Eivind (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what he is trying to say is that things like peer reviewed journals aren't going to switch to blogs and so wikipedia shouldn't either; it's a Slippery slope argument rather than a straw man, its still a fallacy he just didn't word his comment carefully enough to point to what he was really talking about. --Brendan White (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From that AN/I thread I expected actually to need to look up some sources myself, but the Watson article pretty self-evidently passes WP:CREATIVE. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note. Opcn was removing others' relevant comments from the AfD, which violates WP:TALK. I have restored the comments. Opcn has been blocked 24 hours for edit warring per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shows a very fair system when I get chastised for moving someone else's comments but they do not fer restoring them and removing mine [13] the double standard that punishes a new editor and lets a known troll off scot free really shows a great deal of fair and even handedness --Brendan White (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject obviously meets basic criteria of WP:BIO. The use of unreliable sources can be addressed separately in the editing of the article and does not take away from the presence of reliable sources that establish notability. Jeremiah (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has been the subject of multiple published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fredb (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does every random podcast "star" get heir own advertising page on Wikipedia? Isn't this the very definition of a "vanity page?" 4 November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornswalled (talk • contribs) 22:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a point of order, none of the people participating in this edit are "friends" of the person in question. Many are fans of her podcast, but last I checked, it was not against wiki policy to edit pages about subjects that interest you. None of the editors are acting under coercion from Miss Watson, so I can hardly see calling it a "vanity page." As a side note, Damiens.rf has made a point of being contentious in this article and several related articles, instigating edit wars in all of them, and has gone as far as to stalk the forums of an non-wiki site to reveal the side conversations of users who were simply trying to improve wikipedia articles on members of the podcast they listened to. Isn't this the very definition of Harassment as defined by wikipedia's own guidelines?MArcane (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MArcane is right, none of the editors personally know Rebecca Watson. They follow her podcast, and some read her blog. As for your question, Cornswalled, the answer is 'no'. Not every podcast star gets a Wikipedia page. The reason that Rebecca Watson does, is that she has been covered on numerous occasions by several reliable third-party sources. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cornswalled, if you have evidence or logic this is a vanity page (for example, none of the notability links in the article or discussion match wiki's criteria) then you should table it. As far as I can see, you're just repeating the question before us. Mindme (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, once you filter out the personal feelings that podcasts are not notable all that is left is Begging the question. --Brendan White (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that the SGU podcast isn't one person and therefore makes her standing irrelevant (could this not just be on the SGU page?); the competition that makes up the majority of links denotes her as clinching a finalist position by her own online fanbase driving the votes for the competition - and did not eventually get a radio show and thus challenges the 'notable' element. The rest are mostly links to non-mainstream media, a few panel appearances or amateur group presentations (none of them show she has relevant qualifications like Stackpole, Shermer or Randi, being a copywriter and a former retail seller at a magic store - any evidence of her magician standing?) - I'm finding it odd to argue that that it isn't a vanity page considering the drive of the forum linked to is hosted by her at skepchick.org. Canning1980 (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it voting was only part of the process, there was also judging, like by judges --Brendan White (talk) 03:51, 8 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. _Gb^T/c 19:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watching Fuckin' TV All Time Makes a Fool

Disputed prod. No evidence that subject satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Farix (Talk) 20:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know anything about the notability of anime or manga, but if it's determined that this isn't notable, it should be redirected to Naoki Yamamoto. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wholeheartedly support that. If it is not solid as a standalone it should at the very least be redirected. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be a film based on it: Website (might be somewhat nsfw - seminaked girl on front page). --Cattus ^talk 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there's been a live-action adaptation, that would seem to imply notability. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's been adapted. That makes it clearly pass WP:BK #3. Keep. (The adaptation information needs to be added to the article, though, and posthaste.) —Quasirandom (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I added it since no one else did. A assertion of the 2006 adaptation and an Englsih source to verify. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coo. And thanks for finding an English source. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of live-action adaptation is it? If it is direct-to-video, it may still fail WP:BK. WP:BK requires that an adaptation be released commercially in multiple theaters or aired on a nationally televised network or cable station. --Farix (Talk) 02:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to apply wp:bk? OVAs aren't released in theatres or on TV. Your argument would seem to imply that all OVAs would be non-notable, which is clearly silly. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because manga, and dōjinshi by extension, would fall under WP:BK. It is also the only guideline where has an "adaptation" clause in its criteria. OVAs will likely fall under WP:MOVIE. --Farix (Talk) 10:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'm not getting, then, is why THIS wouldn't now fall under WP:MOVIE. Assuming the live-action version of this is direct-to-video (which nobody has actually established, BTW), then the only difference between this and an OVA is the fact that this isn't animated. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not have an answer? You aren't just forum-shopping to ram a deletion through, are you...? 76.116.247.15 (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to answer. There is no evidence that the live-action adaptation passes WP:MOVIE either. As for the charge of forum shopping, were the heck have I bought up the deletion of this article in another forum? If you are going to make such a charge, you better have the evidence to back it up. There are only three ways to get an article deleted. One is by using one of the WP:CSD, of which none of which apply to this article. The second is to propose the article for deletion by using a {{prod}} tag if the editor believes the deletion of the article will be uncontested. If another editor contests the deletion by removing the {{prod}} tag or the editor proposing the article deletion believes that the deletion may be contested, it must go to AFD. Your charge that I'm forum shopping shows a woeful assumption of bad faith. --Farix (Talk) 16:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Farix: to be honest, I can't tell whether this received a theatrical release or not. We need someone with better Japanese than mine to research it. If this were an animated OVA, though, the consensus of the Manga Wikiproject is that it would definitely count; a direct-to-video live-action movie, I don't think has been discussed. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no consensus that everything with an adaptation is automaticly notable. If the work lacks coverage by reliable source and so does the adaptations, then both will still fail WP:NOTE and any of the other notability guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 16:46, 1 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, MBisanz ^talk 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was adapted. There is times when to use WP:IAR and I think that this is a good time for me to use it. Schuym1 (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BOOK which states "The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country". Being adapted qualifies this book for inclusion. WP:BOOK does not mandate that the adaptation be itself notable, only that the book be adapted to qualify here. If the adaptation were to have its own article IT would have to then qualify under WP:NF. However, and in the meantime, the book has itself met the inclusion criteria, and a little common sense must be used here, as per the very first paragraph of the guideline itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:00, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross My Heart and Hope to Spy

Completely WP:OR. No notability asserted for book. Tan | 39 19:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sounded like nonsense to me, but original research seems a good fit too. -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 19:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I follow the blog of the agent of the author who wrote this book. (Yes, I know. A mouthful to say that.) It may well be a notable book, but this is not the content to put in it. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability indeed--none claimed, no sources given. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:48, 4 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 Nomination Withdrawn. Even with the delete votes, I feel that the article has been improved enough to substantiate a close for this debate. Since the delete votes are extremely similar to the issues brought up by the nom and since the nom withdrew, I am assuming that the delete voters will reverse their decisions as well. If you object to this, please renominate and message me on my talk page. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Fitzpatrick

This article is about a film director who fails to meet notability. Tags requesting article improvement were removed by somebody related to his company based on the username raising issues of conflict of interest. A search conducted on google and google news turns up no reliable sources to support notability. All references supplied in the article are to IMDB and only confirm listings of movies he has directed or written. There is no indication that his work has received a significant award or any other indication of thrid party coverage. Whpq (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, the articles from the Kansas City Star and the Wichita Eagle are sufficient to establish notability, and as such, I am withdrawaing the nomination, and advocating keep for the article. -- Whpq (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Jeremiah (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Biography Policy, and per nom. _David ^WS _(contribs) 20:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and the COI is obvious. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP. Forget the COI.... as the article now belongs to Wiki. Fluff can be removed. COI can be neutralized. It can be improved and should stay. If someone removes the tag, just put it back. My own quick look at Google News for "Blake Fitzpatrick" director, shows numerous articles about this young direector... multiple in-depth and extensive coverage in reliable sources. He has the coverage. The notability is most definitely there. Forget about COI and let's make this a proper BLP per The Kansas City Star, The Wichita Eagle, and THIS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging up the articles, although it might have been easier if you made it more clear as the search result includes lots of Blake Fitzpatricks that are clearly not related. The Two KC Star articles are are from different years so its clear that the coverage was more than a one time thing so I'm satisfied that there is notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Was not able to do as thorough a sourcing as I would have myself liked, and apologize for any superfluous links. Was at the time stuck using dial-up. 50kbps is painful after broadband. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:29, 6 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 Rebecca Watson. To Rebecca Watson - I just closed that as keep Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skepchick

Neologism being pushed forward by a clique of bloggers. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting ideas. Damiens.rf 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the name of an organization. It should be re-written as an organization. Mindme (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nor is it a dictionary of neologisms. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N—especially in regards to reliability of sources. Jeremiah (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rebecca Watson as half the article is about the website she started and without some explanation the first line of her article will lack context.--Boffob (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca Watson is basically written by just one editor and most of it's 27 references are trivial self-published primary sources. Deleting both wouldn't be a great loss. --Damiens.rf 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the Rebecca Watson article relies almost entirely on sources from blogs, youtube, and other primary sources and should go as well. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of them, "almost" being the operative word. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry I didn't check those sources properly. I figured with 27 non-bare cites it'd be legit. But I guess my vote stands until the Rebecca Watson article itself gets deleted.--Boffob (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already nominated (thanks, User:Coccyx Bloccyx): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Watson --Damiens.rf 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the Rebecca Watson article is written by mostly one person isn't surprising since it was created just a few days ago! Of course there aren't a lot of editors yet. Also it shouldn't matter, articles should be judged solely on their content. Whether the content is good/notable enough I've discussed on the relevant page. Ole Eivind (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly a neologism. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See WP:Neologism. _David ^WS _(contribs) 20:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rebecca Watson. Enough reliable third-party sources about her (such as articles in The Boston Globe), and she is pivotal to the term "Skepchick". Unless good sources are found on the word, I think it's best to merge the article into the Rebecca Watson article. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor update: found an article from Der Spiegel linking to the Skepchick.org site 1. The very last link in the story is to the Skepchick site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan Kruithof (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rebecca Watson. This article is extremely lacking, and everything worth saying is said in the article about Watson. I guess this in practice means Delete. Ole Eivind (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge And lets stop talking about the other article here, there is a page for it and that is where discussion of it should be --129.19.136.103 (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the Rebecca article. There is no source establishing notability on the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable third party sources on the subject. Every last one of them fail WP:RS guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rebecca Watson. While I don't read her site, I do read other skeptical sites, and Skepchick pretty much always refers to Rebecca. Any broader meaning can be covered in her article if it's kept.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:28, 5 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 Git (software). Sandstein 23:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junio Hamano

Originally, I marked the page for speedy deletion due to an apparent lack of claim of notability; the notice was removed by the creator. Subsequently, it was proposed for deletion with the following reason: "Non-notable living person, possible merge to Git (software) as this individual has nothing noteworthy about them besides being the developer of Git, an open-source software application. May not be worth even merging though, as this article has very minimal content." Since the deletion was already contested by the author (and since there's a proposal to merge the page), I'd say that a full debate won't do any harm. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone translate this and say whether the subject is treated in a non-trivial fashion? This book is also a possible source. Even though I'm bringing up these sources, it seems to me that this is a case where notability is not inherited. Jeremiah (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The German source Jeremiah mentioned above just says he manages the Git software nothing else. Since he only seems to be known for working on this software, I think a redirect is a good solution. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, merge, or delete I more-recently PROD'd the page, since the original author had removed the earlier PROD. I just don't feel the individual is notable - if we had a stub page for every open source software developer, things would get out of hand very quickly. It could be that a redirect or a merge (if any content is worth merging?) is a worthwhile move, as well. Whatever the concensus is, is probably going to be for the best. 71.61.220.126 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:29, 5 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 userfy to a User:DX-MON subpage. Grutness...wha? 04:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PokéBattlers

Unsourced article on an unauthorised fan-made Pokemon browser game. No evidence of notability, was tagged with {{db-web}}; the creator asserts [14] that criterion doesn't apply to it. Bringing it here for a wider view just in case this isn't so clear-cut. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could not find any reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as with the original CsD request, a fangame does not meet the general notability requirements of Wikipedia unless the said game had been covered as Super_Mario:_Blue_Twilight_DX was covered on G4 TV. --Mooshykris (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there are no reliable sources and the game doesn't even exist yet. WP:CRYSTAL or WP:COI. --Terrillja (talk)

Delete per nom due to lack of sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As part of The PokéBattlers Team, and also as a Software Engineer..... firstly, Software does not apply to just what you "download and run on your desktop". Second, according to Mooshykris's definition of "Software", the new Cloud platforms such as Windows Azure are just "web content", this is NOT true, these PHP/SQL/web-language and Desktop software hybrids are just as much software as your web-browser, or any PHP/ASP applications you care to load with it. A7 may NOT be applied in this senario as Web Software is just another branch of Software. Third: The game does exist, it very much does exist and has for more than 1/2 a year. Forth: A lack of sources is caused to there only being one site to do with it at the moment, so this argument is invalid till the game re-establishes (We resently changed servers and the like so people don't know about it's new location) DX-MON (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Point by point: 1/2. This is a web site. Therefore, it is web content. The fact that there is software which operates it is irrelevant. While you raise an interesting point with regard to cloud computing, your site doesn't use any such technologies, so it's not really applicable here. 3. Existing does not entitle your web site to a Wikipedia article. 4. If having moved recently has caused some reliable sources describing your web site to refer to the wrong address, feel free to cite them anyway. If those sources don't exist in the first place, though, that's not a very good excuse. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ok, you want to argue with a programmer, have it your way.....: 1/2: when a user directly interacts with a program (as like you do with this site), then is it content, or program?! It's a program still!!. 3: no, I was not saying that, I was saying that the point of it not existing was invalid. 4: There are no sources now as the sources we would have been calling appon have been removed when server changes took place else-where..... I am saying that, please, keep the point of no 3rd party sources yet out of this as there will be sources available within the next year (we hope), so just give it a chance. DX-MON (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being generated by a program does not make this web site any less a web site. And if all your sources managed to disappear at the same time that you moved, then I fail to see how they could have been independent sources. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article reads like an advertisement for webcontent that has not received any coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Since no 3rd party sources are available to verify the information Wikipedia should not have an article on it. A new name 2008 (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete: Creator states that there is only one site to do with it at the moment. That's no other sources, let alone reliable third-party sources. Thus, this article fails the current WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY policy at this time. Randomran (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only reason that there are no 3rd party sources *currently* is that the product is brand-new, if you expect that a product (on first launch) is to have citable refferences immediately, then you are very much mistaken as to what the real world senario is, I do not think that this is a good bassis to delete a new article on, as articles will develop in time if given that time to do so, not if they are imediately killed as they are born. DX-MON (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll also add that according to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, this could possibly count as "self-promotion." --Mooshykris (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If, Mooshykris, you feel that the article is "self-promotion", then please edit it to make it more neutral and more like a commentary on the product, rather than dealing with it in this petty way which does not promote free contribution. DX-MON (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the Google hits are pages that are independent from the creators. Listed as upcoming software, violating WP:CRYSTAL, no independent reviews and almost no visitors. Appears to advertisement. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, 1: There is a problem with going by Google hits: it takes time for changes to propergate with Google. Also, Google cannot tell you of sources that used to exist and that no longer exist. 2: We are not trying to advertise, if you feel it is, then edit it to be more neutral. DX-MON (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing verifiable source policy, crystal ball, and conflict of interest — similar characteristics that other deleted MMORPG article have had. MuZemike (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not look notable to me after searching around for a bit. And, it almost seems like an ad or review for the game, which should not be here. Firebat08 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Request: As Kaboom42 is now offline, I request that the deletion of this article is put on hold till the ideas discussed at User_talk:DX-MON#November_2008 have either been approved, implemented or discarded so that he may stand a chance of saving his first piece of work. I have put forth an idea there that perhaps some of you who are ameanable might want to help re-write the page with us, the PokéBattlers team, so that the problems of NPOV, COI and Crystal Ball can be resolved. DX-MON (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NO fangame meets the notability requirements unless it has reliable sources, period! --Mooshykris (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment you've not read that properly...... I'm asking for the deletion to be put on hold till Kaboom42 can cast his decision on what is to happen, and depending on his decision, the potential userfying of the article. I then through in an offer/request to improve the article once in user-space if he so wishes....... You've jumped again. DX-MON (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Kaboom doesn't really had any say in the fate of the article...that's the job of an admin, who I hope one reads this soon, as the conclusion really has been delete. Why can't you just accept that? --Mooshykris (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Because I'm invoking the rules of Userfy articles, as suggested by MuZemike - an admin. Please get that point, otherwise you've just ran head-long into a pile of rules. I am actually getting very annoyed by you as you're obstructing the fact that Kaboom42 aught to have a say as it is his article, and that he deserves to be able to userfy it so he can work on it to make it acceptable, again I refer you to the talk at User_talk:DX-MON#November_2008. This time please READ that as it explains my asking for a hold on deletion. DX-MON (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not an admin. Userfying is just a way to keep the content in the case the article gets deleted so you don't lose all the work. MuZemike (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well I didn't know you're not an admin - you page almost indicates it. Anyway, my point on the rules of userfying still remain, and the fact that Kaboom42 aught to be given a chance to userfy it also remains, and I hope you back me up on that, as he's A) in a different time-zone to me, and B) Has a limited ammount of time on the computer so just whiping the article out from under his feet when he's not looking seems extreamly unfair. DX-MON (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just happen to have a ~~sexy~~ nice-looking page :) Sysopping is overrated, anyway; it's just a couple of extra tools ;) MuZemike (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note — article has been userfied into DX-MON's namespace to prevent loss of the content, in hopes that the article can be improved and in the future meet the relevant guidelines for inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 01:05, 4 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 Leicester Forest East#Schools. Coverage is only from The Leicester Mercury, and any local school would expect coverage in such media. Otherwise, appears to be an unremarkable primary; the NHSS and IIS awards are shared by thousands of such schools. Black Kite 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford Leys Primary School

Non-notable primary school, contested PROD. PROD notice was moved without discussion. School is not outstanding per its last ofsted report and has no redeeming features that would make it notable. role^player 18:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing further discussion below I am happy to concur with a merge and redirect to the appropriate locality for this school. -- role^player 01:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable primary school, it's generally taken that whilst secondary schools should have their own article it is not with regard to primaries.Paste (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading below Merge to Leicester Forest East#Schools seems eminently sensible.Paste (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of how fascinating it might be that their day is divided into pre-break, post-break, and post-lunch periods. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Leicester Forest East#Schools per common practice. Primary schools are generally not notable and this one doesn't appear to be an exception. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Leicester Forest East#Schools, where it can be discussed in context and await significant coverage in reliable sources to justify an independent article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update to Keep per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:N. Now has references to sourcing. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Leicester Forest East#Schools per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the expansion of the page now means that it meets WP:N with multiple, independent sources. TerriersFan (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to appropriate school area. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject of substantial third party coverage. I see no reason to override WP:N in this case. Wily D 21:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Leicester Forest East#Schools. The conventional view is that secondary schools usually are notable and should have theri own articles; primary schools usually are not and should be briefly mentioned under the place where they are. The fact that there is independent coverage does not affect that. A summary of the material can usefully be incorporated in to the village article, which means that it will not be lost to WP. The Schools section in this case is excessively terse, so that the merger will improve that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water one

No assertion of notability, doesn't meet WP:CORP Tan | 39 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add salt. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I have stated in the past, This Company has been in my community since I was a kid. They have donated incredible amounts to the community as well have developed and invented many new products.. This company is well worthy of a wiki article and I thought my admission meant the criteria perfectly. I did not advertise, I did not promote, and I did not put any phone numbers or anything like that. In fact, I included links to other water related company wiki articles of which I based the content style of my article on. If those other similar companies with similar wiki pages as the one I just created are allowed then why not the one I created?

If you have any suggestions on how to improve this article to your standards I will accept and implement them accordingly. Thanks ahead of time for your help if I get any. Mike810 (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find any reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Company does not appear notable and very difficult to find hits about this company showing any independent opinion of notability. Because a company exists does not make it notable. Please see WP:CORP (and WP:OWN). In addition, WP:OSE is not usually a good strategy for XfD discussions. If this company is actually notable, let's just get some cites to prove it. I have no personal prejudice against the article...it just doesn't meet the community's standards. Frank | talk 18:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've left Mike a note explaining how he should improve the references. Let's run this the full period so he's got time to give it a go. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable company. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article was speedied a few days ago. I was then unable to verify key claims, including the claim that they do, in fact, produce the "Pure Sip" purifyer or anything but bottled water. Meeting WP:CORP is another problem (and a serious one), but not meeting WP:V is fatal. The creator was informed about the article's problems. Huon (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not Beleive these strict rules of wikipedia.. Just because their isnt a description of the company on the internet does not mean it doesnt exist or its products dont exist. This company does in fact distribute Pure Sips but only to military agencies. I put a link to a article on calco LTD which is water one inc (combined companies). It explains the "trailer" which is similar to the pure sip.. The wiki editors deleted the part about the trailer. This company is very notable, just not on the internet. Mike810 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually give a long explanation to this sort of attitude - which we've all seen many, many times - about how no one here has anything personal against you or your article; about how companies do not deserve Wikipedia articles; about how your perception of notability doesn't mean it is notable; about how Wikipedia's "strict" rules of inclusion help create a more credible, accurate, and usable encyclopedia (and remember, that's what this is, an encyclopedia - not the yellow pages); about how it's not just Gwen or I, obviously there are several other editors on this page explaining why this company should not be included on Wikipedia. I would explain all these things in great, patient detail. Except we already have. Apparently, you just refuse to listen. I'm done explaining. I set up this AfD debate as a courtesy to you, to show you that other established, experienced editors agreed that it should be deleted. I could have just deleted it under CSD criteria A7 and been done with it, but I thought you'd appreciate the show of consensus. But I'm done with it. This article will end up being deleted, I will probably protect it and any variants against re-creation, and that will be that. Good day. Tan | 39 16:08, 4 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 Barlestone. Sandstein 23:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barlestone Primary School

Non Notable primary school. Paste (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Happy to concur with suggestion below Merge/redirect to Barlestone per usual practice.Paste (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Primary schools are two-a-penny and this one is a bog-standard school with nothing special singling it out. It didn't even receive an outstanding ofsted report, according to the "further reading" provided - something that would have made it a keeper, imo. -- role^player 17:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to merge and redirect with Barlestone, per other arguments below. -- role^player 01:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the usual notability standard. I see no reason to make a special exception in this case. Wily D 18:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Barlestone (locality) per common practice for non-notable schools. WP:RS interest exists but is not substantial enough. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Barlestone per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to village accoring to custom. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Barlestone --Jh12 (talk) 09:09, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient vocal method

Note: During this discussion User:Warrington moved the article to Ancient vocal methods and re-wrote it on a different subject. See Comments on the new version at the bottom of this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (Updated Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This is a highly dubious concept/theory that is entirely unknown and unused by all except the article's creator, Jacocks5671. The only real source is his book, which appears to consist of unreferenced conjecture. It is not a scholarly thesis, and a check of WorldCat shows that no libraries hold it. I've googled "Ancient vocal method" (general, news, scholar, and books). Absolutely nothing comes up except the Wikipedia article, its mirrors, and the web sites of the article's creator. Other editors have tried to tone it down, but it's basically unfixable. The article was created on July 19 2007, the day before the self-published book Anatomy of Bel Canto: Stroke of the Mask, Chest Support, and Proof for the Ancient Method by Kendrick Jacocks [15] came out. References to it were then sprinkled around Wikipedia, e.g. [16], [17], [18], [19]. Presumably it was also in Jacocks' Wikipedia "biography" which has now been speedy deleted twice [20]. Voceditenore (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources in article. Taking nominator's word that good faith efforts were made to find others. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google search results for "ancient vocal method": Google, Google News (all dates), Google Scholar, Google Books. You get similar results for googling Kendrick Jacocks, apart from a German newspaper article about a show he was going to be in called "Strangers in the Night" (Berlin, December 2007). Voceditenore (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voceditenore.Nrswanson (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If he publishes a book and then cites himself here, it's still original research. Rklear (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrigt but do not delete It is a very narrow topic, but I have read and heard about this theory, mostly in the works about the Antic Greek Theater. I do not expect that this kind of information is available on Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrington (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 November 2008

Comment Obviously there are various ancient vocal methods (plural) that are discussed in the literature, in a variety of cultural contexts, and especially for the theatre of ancient Greece both in terms of vocal methods for conveying different aspects of the drama and vocal methods for projecting in a large amphitheatre. But that's not the same thing here. This article claims to be about "the ancient vocal method", as if it were a single unified concept. The theory is that it all began in Africa and ended up as "the bel canto technique" (in itself a spurious notion) used in 19th century Europe. This is all based on an OR synthesis of various "coincidences", e.g. Vincenzo Bellini who wrote bel canto operas came from Sicily and Sicily is geographically close to Africa; a famous 19th century vocal pedagogue, Manuel García was Spanish and Spain was invaded by the Moors, etc. etc. The most bizarre and unreferenced assertion in the article is about Miguel Fleta (a Spanish tenor) allegedly termed the "Lord High Keeper of the Seal of the Ancient Vocal Method". This may have been said about him by someone but I'm pretty sure that in that context, "ancient" referred to the various opera singing methods used in the 19th century (Fleta was active 1919-1935). In any case, brilliant though he was, he went into a widely documented premature vocal decline - so much for "the ancient vocal method", alas. Voceditenore (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ansver There is no other article on Ancient vocal methods on Wikipedia. You may correct the parts that are wrong accordnig to your comments, but you do not need to delete the whole article. You can leave the article so other editors will find it and will use it like a base, because as you wrote Obviously there are various ancient vocal methods (plural) that are discussed in the literature, in a variety of cultural contexts, and especially for the theatre of ancient Greece, both in terms of vocal methods for conveying different aspects of the drama and vocal methods for projecting in a large amphitheatre (through comedy and tragedy masks). You can call it ancient vocal methods (plural), with the proper references. Warrington (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply To correct the parts that are wrong in this article would literally mean blanking it and starting all over again with completely different content on what would basically be a completely different subject. If you or anyone else is prepared to do that and can produce a viable stub before this deletion discussion finishes, fine. (The article would also have to be moved to Ancient vocal methods). But it cannot be left blank or with only circular content like "Ancient vocal methods are the methods of voice production used in ancient times" on the off-chance that someone will find it and fill it in. Besides, there are existing articles where the material you're talking about could be added, or where the red link (Ancient vocal methods) could be incorporated into the text, e.g. Theatre of ancient Greece, Voice projection, Singing, etc. Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I will do the job, as god as I can, and you will help me whith what you think is missing from it, instead of just critisising it, Ok? Warrington (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what you're planning to do with the topic, but nothing from the current article should stay, in my view, including the reference. The currrent content is a fanciful 'theory' with absolutely no basis in fact, written by a non-notable author purely to publicize his non-notable manual about bel canto opera singing. By his own admission there is no supporting evidence for any of his assertions apart from his own imaginings.[21]. The material about Fleta is wrong, the material about bel canto technique is wrong, and the bit about nasality is frankly flaky. There are no "teachers who advocate the Ancient vocal method" (apart from the author in question) because it exists only in his imagination. My own advice to you would be to let this AfD run its course and meanwhile work on a completely new article under a proper title (for one thing, you'd have to define what period you mean by "ancient") and then publish the article when you at least have a viable referenced stub. Deleting this one, makes no difference to that and the name needs to be changed anyway. Voceditenore (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with Voceditenore. After looking at what you have done Warrington, I still think the best thing is to delete the article. For one thing, I wouldn't view the Jacocks book as a reliable enough source to even discuss ancient singing and I have several issues with the content on ancient singing. For example, the first recorded mention of the term "head voice" was around the 13th century, when it was distinguished from the throat and the chest voice (pectoris, guttoris, capitis -- at this time it is likely head voice referred to the falsetto register) by the writers Johannes de Garlandia and Jerome of Moravia. Any suggestion of an earlier use or application is at worst false and at best original research. In fact, other than the information taken from the article on Theatre of ancient Greece, the whole thing is blatant original research. You haven't even adequately established that multiple ancient vocal methods existed. The only method substantiated is the one used in Ancient Greek Theatre. So really, this article hasn't done anything to improve the encyclopedia.Nrswanson (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing my best, please read the article and help. You seem to be able to contribute. This is a very interesting topic and clearly worth an article in the encyclopedia. Warrington (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well frankly, I don't think it does. The known ancient vocal methods are either already adequately discussed or could be adequately discussed in there own articles: Chinese Opera, Theatre of ancient Greece, Music of ancient Rome, Music of ancient Greece, Music of Mesopotamia, etc. Therefore this article will simply restate information that is already in other articles. Further, very little is known about vocal methods prior to the 13th century as few written records exist. Really the only methods with a considerable ammount of material are the roots of Chinese opera and Greek Theatre. Two topics already covered in there own articles. Further, these methods developed seperately in there own time, place, culture, etc. so I'm not sure what the benefit would be bringing together an incredibly diverse array of information. This further brings the problem of defining what an Ancient vocal method is. A task that would frankly be original research because the term itself is original research. Nrswanson (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, it is very little known about vocal methods. This is a very good argument for having an article on this, because an encyclopedia should be as complete as possible. Somebody one day would like to know about this subject, because, as you say, it is not a well known topic. The topic is still very interesting, because it is part of the theater and music history, and is something that should be found in an encyclopedia. I think that listinng pop and rock albums is much less important in terms of an encyclopedia than a topic like this. Now, I am on a place that I can not use or find any books on this topic right now, but you all seems to have enough knowledge to come whith a lot if well informed comments. Using all this energy instead of expanding the article would make a much more costructive contribution for the Wikipedia.. Warrington (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Warrington I don't think you understand wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of articles. The encyclopedia has notability guidelines which you should read. The encyclopedia also has a strict policy against articles that are original research. The reason why this topic shouldn't have an article is because its original concept. You won't find any sources under "Ancient vocal methods" because its an original term. Wikipedia is interested in what is verifiably true and since this topic can't be verified there shouldn't be an article on it.Nrswanson (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nrswanson, I don't think you try to understand either what I am trying to say. Warrington (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The only cite is the author's book, and it is therefore a circular reference and original research. Could very well be a hoax, too. _David ^WS _(contribs) 00:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the new version

Comment the article seems to have been rewritten in more general tems--do the objections still hold? DGG (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now it's an unreferenced stub that looks somewhat like a dictdef and a potential {{fact}} tag magnet. Not sure how much of an improvement that is. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and clarification Yesterday, in the midst of the discussion, User:Warrington moved the article to Ancient vocal methods (plural) and re-wrote it on a rather different subject, although it still has a fragment left from the previous version. I personally find this rather unhelpful, and had suggested that he let the AfD take its course and then create a new article on the new subject if he felt it was a worthwhile topic and had the references for it. However, given the situation, I think we should now discuss whether this new title and basically new article should be deleted. Voceditenore (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this version too. The current unreferenced article now consists of a fragment from the previous article which no longer makes sense in the context (and was highly dubious in the first place), a copy/paste from Theatre of ancient Greece, and a copy/paste of some remarks I had made during the course of this discussion (taken out of context). The topic is ill-conceived and ill-defined. What is the time scope of "ancient"? And the scope "vocal methods"? Vocal methods could also refer to methods of voice production in oratory and ritual story-telling as well as song. The article appears to be concentrating on ancient Greek theatre, but will that be all? Will it include material on other cultures? It is a virtual guarantee of becoming original research and synthesis, especially since research in this area is both sparse and contradictory. See above for Nrswanson's comments on this issue, comments with which I completely concur and also Delphic Hymns. I also share Nrswanson's view that what little material can be found is already in or would be more appropriately added to existing articles, e.g. Theatre of ancient Greece, Voice projection, Singing, Chinese Opera, Music of ancient Rome, Music of ancient Greece, Music of Mesopotamia, Medieval music etc. If and when there is sufficient material in a variety of articles, a WP:LIST could be produced to aid navigation but I would certainly recommend a title other than "List of ancient vocal methods". Voceditenore (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above and Voceditenore's excellent summation of the problems of the new version.Nrswanson (talk) 14:10, 5 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. Consensus is that the sources cited do not meet WP:RS Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Schroeder

Non-notable amateur hockey player. He fails to acheive notability. This article can be recreated if and when he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 17:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes the usual notability standard given the level of press coverage of this guy. WP:ATHLETE is pretty explicit about being a supplement to WP:N - people who're notable per N don't become unnotable by being athletes. In extreme cases athletes are sometimes notable without playing professionally (from a Hockey perspective, Lindros clearly was, for instance) - this seems to be a case of that. Wily D 17:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All provided sources are trivial. Hockeysfuture.com covers an incredibly broad range of players, whereas the college bio in no way establishes notability. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 17:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth investigating the subject of an article before nominating it for deletion. ;) Additionally, your use of "trivial" doesn't jive with the usual use of the word, making the assertion false is the usual understanding. Wily D 18:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does, per WP:N for a source to be non-trivial the article itself must be about the player, not just mention the player.-Djsasso (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references that I have added are not trivial. One of them is a 2,000 word article just about Schroeder. Eóin (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And do you have more than one of those? ie multiple, and from a source that is considered reliable. Most of the sources I see on the page right now are either not reliable sources ie hockeysfuture, or are local in nature, or are just brief mentions. -Djsasso (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the newspapers references that I added are from regional newspapers, the 18th and 49th largest newspapers in the U.S., and have over 500 words devoted to Schroeder. I understand that they are hidden behind a fee wall for some people but anyone with access to ProQuest can see them. Most people with a library card in the U.S. have access. There are multiple trivial mentions of him in newspapers like in high school box scores but the ones that I have added are not trivial. Eóin (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And mostly all from the same paper, the references need to be from multiple reliable sources and be non-trivial in each of them. -Djsasso (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained above and in other places, the coverage received by Schroeder is "from multiple reliable sources" and all of the cited references that I have added are "non-trivial". There are over a half-dozen articles that I have added the fulfill the above requirements. They come from three different major newspapers. How many newspapers that report similar sized coverage of Schroeder would you like there to be? Eóin (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. There's no doubt that this guy may have a "prospective NHL career" ahead of him, but as I recall, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Lindros example is a bit extreme, as, like John Tavares, he was considered The Next One. I don't think Jordan Schroeder has drawn similar comparisons. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, he's not quite Lindros, but Lindros pre-draft wouldn't exactly risk the skin of his teeth getting by WP:N. I don't think we can seriously dispute that he passes WP:N; I can't fathom any reading of that page that doesn't pass him. WP:ATHLETE is explicitly in addition to, not in replacement of, WP:N, so a strict reading of that still says "keep per WP:N". To argue delete needs to plead special circumstances - otherwise WP:N is very clear (even if the examples used are more prominant). Wily D 20:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Jordan is the highest ranked American prospect in his NHL draft class. He outscored Tavares in the World Junior Championships. Schroeder has been involved in the same discussion as Tavares and Hedman for the last year. As stated previously, he has press coverage and passes the usual notability standard. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this article does not suggest that. The 'Prospective NHL Career' section is but a section seen in many existing pages. Americans players in vanRiemsdyk and Patrick Kane both received their own article page even before being drafted, as did Alexei Cherepanov. Schroeder should be no different in this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bauerhoc9 (talk • contribs)

Tavares has achieved notability through other means (CHL Player of the Year). Cherepanov was a professional player before being drafted. As for vanRiemsdyk and Kane, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS counters these arguments. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 20:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —User:Grsz11
Delete This player is not something out of the ordinary and he does not meet notability standards, and that include both WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 20:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that competing in a world junior championship and getting coverage from several reliable sources suffices to make him quite out of the ordinary; as noted above, failing WP:ATHLETE doesn't make someone automatically notable, and he passes notability on other grounds. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment God help us if we start to call Hockeysfuture a reliable source... Reso lute 23:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey's Future isn't the source, the International Scouting Services is. Hockey's Future is merely a site that has posted the ISS's rankings.Bauerhoc9 —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Hasn't played professionally, hasn't won a significant amateur award, hasn't (yet) been drafted in the first round of the NHL draft. Once he accomplishes one of these criteria, the article can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dwight D. Eisenhower never played professional sports, won a significant amateur sports award, and was never drafted in the first round of a professional sports draft, but he's still notable. The point being argued is that he passes other criteria; or do you also believe that he fails those? Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schroeder fails WP:ATHLETE. He has never played professionally or at the highest amateur level. Your comparison is frankly absurd. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 01:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To satisfy WP:ATHLETE one must either have competed professionally or "competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Schroeder currently competes in D-1 college hockey -- one of, if not the highest level of amateur hockey and has competed in the World Junior Championships -- the apex of non-professional hockey. Major Junior hockey leagues and European Elite hockey leagues are exempt from the category of amateur as their athletes receive salary. According to the criterion, not only does Schroeder satisfy WP:NOTABILITY, he satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Bauerhoc9

The highest level of amateur sport for ice hockey is the World Championships or Olympics, events in which he has not participated. He thus fails WP:ATHLETE. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And further, as an aside, major junior players are not paid. For some reason, people tend to think this is the case, but it isn't. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The International Ice Hockey Federation World Under 20 Championship IS the highest level of amateur sport for hockey players under 20. He therefore passes WP:ATHLETE. So Keep. ThePointblank (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no age restriction for those under 20 to compete in the senior world championship, so the under-20 world championship is NOT the highest level of amateur ice hockey. Patken4 (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple sources that I've added to the article. There are over 120 news articles mentioning him in just the last month. He might fail WP:ATHLETE but that doesn't matter because he clearly meets notability guidelines. Eóin (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS articles have to be about the subject for it to be a reliable source, not just mention the subject. -Djsasso (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources deals with who publishes the information not what the information is about. I think what you're trying to say that per WP:N there must be significant coverage and not just trivial mentions of the subject. The references that I added all have significant coverage of Schroeder and are published by reliable sources. Eóin (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are sources who exclusively cover as many amateur hockey players as they possibly can? "Insidecollegehockey, hockeysfuture are not reliable sources for notability. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 03:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm still lost at what you are trying to say. I've never mentioned or referred to the sources you just listed. I don't know why you consider The New York Times, the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press unreliable sources. Eóin (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous... If this article passes I could just as easily create articles for all players projected to go in the top 50ish in the 2009 NHL Entry Draft since they are just as notable as this player (I wont, but it is equally as ridiculous as keeping this article). He is not an exceptional player, there is a huge difference being projected going first, or in this years case, first or second, and being projected possibly to go in the top 10. If he is drafted in the first round the article can be easily re-created, but until then he hasn't done anything to satisfy the criteria for athletes articles on Wikipedia. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Being the best draft eligible hockey player in the U.S. is worthy of 'exceptional' status and is not the kind of praise 40-50 other players are capable of claiming. His notability is legitimate whereas the notability of 'top 50ish' players is not. Don't kid yourself. -Bauerhoc9 —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

You are speculating, and being the best draft eligible hockey player in the U.S. does not equal notable unless he has played professional, competed at the highest level of amateur sports, or won a significant award. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 11:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE in that he has never competed at the highest level of amateur competition available to him which would be the World Championships or the Olympics. Under-20 players are not restricted from playing in either of those competitions making them the highest he could play at. His article can be created when/if he ever plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. D-1 players have been deleted time and again as not notable -Djsasso (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't need to meet ATHLETE if he meets the general notability criteria. Eóin (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except he doesn't meet WP:N. That is the point. -Djsasso (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added six separate 500 word newspaper articles that solely discuss Schroeder. If that's not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources then I don't know what is. Eóin (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. We have established time and again that unless a college player does something remarkable like win the Hobey Baker Award, they aren't notable. D1 is not the highest level of amateur hockey...and the sources provided are purely local. For a player that plays across the country, the only coverage he's getting is in his home city...as do most college athletes, particularly when newspapers try to write feature articles on whole teams. --Smashville^talk 21:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he's getting coverage in two cities; Saint Paul and Minneapolis :) And as evidenced by The New York Times Schroeder has played only in Minnesota and Wisconsin, not quite around the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.186.120 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Tribune is a statewide newspaper.Bauerhoc9 (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both the New York Times and the Star Tribune only have a small notice about him, that is only trivial and far from significant coverage (sources address the subject directly in detail). Still fails WP:N. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 11:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're just cherry picking the references. I don't see how the 2,000 word article from the Pioneer Press or two 1,000 word article that are just about Schroeder aren't significant coverage. Eóin (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soo...you're saying that anyone on the planet who has a 2,000 word article about them in a major newspaper is notable? I think Wikipedia's article count just tripled...Based on your argument, I could argue that literally anyone on the planet who has received a significant piece of media coverage deserves an article. Some relatives of mine once became the subject of a mini media frenzy in Greater Vancouver when they were massively overcharged when they had their carpets cleaned. Vancouver Sun, the Province, BCTV, it was crazy! Should someone write an article about them? Didn't think so. Like where's the common sense here... – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said or argued that a person with a 2,000 word article is automatically notable. Where do you think I said that? Your relatives are notable for one event. Common sense is that someone notable for one event is not notable enough for an article. As you can see from the six references that are over 500 words that do not mention Schroeder in a trivial manner, Schroeder has had stories about him published in reliable sources for almost four years. It's common sense that a person with a history of coverage in the media warrants an article on Wikipedia just as a person who was overcharged once does not. Eóin (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and Hockey Notability Standards. Non-notable in hockey until he competes at Worlds, is drafted in the first round, or plays in a fully professional league. Subject is not notable for anything outside of hockey (For the person who tried to assert that Eisenhower should not be notable above because of the hockey standards, he is notable for being president). Article can be recreated at such a time when the subject becomes notable. -Pparazorback (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One project's notability criteria do not over ride the general notability guideline which Schroeder meets with the multiple significant sources about him in the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press. Eóin (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the sources are not necessarily about him. As Djasso said earlier - per WP:N for a source to be non-trivial the article itself must be about the player, not just mention the player. Using your logic, then just about EVERY hockey player would be notable because they were mentioned in an article about a game. This player is still not notable. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add, both of those newspapers are local or regional in nature. They are merely covering the "local" players and teams and obviously there will be coverage on those local players. I have never seen any articles about this player in my newspaper. Do you have any extensive sources outside of the local press? -Pparazorback (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right above your comment I just stated that the sources were about him and that they were significant. Not every hockey player is mentioned in a game, aside from the box score, no matter what level of play. For additional arguments concerning the significance of the sources please see my response to Djsasso above which I have made earlier.

The location of the coverage is not as important as the coverage itself. How many NHL hockey players receive significant coverage in markets outside their own? In my experience from a hockey crazed state very few if any. Just because my regional newspapers never reports about something doesn't make it not notable. There are probably many things that you consider regionally notable and deserve Wikipedia articles that my regional newspapers have not and never will mention. Eóin (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the point, it has been a wide spread standard that locally notable does not equal notable enough for wikipedia for anyone, not just athletes, heck not even just people. He has to receive widespread coverage. -Djsasso (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I use the term notable I use it the Wikipedia sense of the definition, as in deserving of an article not in known throughout the community. Almost all high schools in the United States receive zero coverage outside their respective city and yet they are notable for the significant coverage they receive in their local reliable media outlets. Almost no neighborhoods of any major cities receive any sort of coverage outside the area yet many are notable. Most local politicians do not receive any coverage outside their area. The point is subjects do not have to receive coverage from around the country to be notable. There are so many counterexamples to the idea that subjects must receive widespread coverage that it would be pointless to list them. The fact is that Schroeder has received enough coverage that is significant and from reliable sources that he is notable. Eóin (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have established various times that non-major award winning college/major junior players are not notable. Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. There is nothing that makes this article any different than the other 34 non-notable articles I just linked. --Smashville^talk 00:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles above did not have significant coverage unlike this one as I have demonstrated above and in the article. Eóin (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those actually had more significant coverage than Jordan Schroeder...Many of those players were already drafted, had played many years in college or major junior, and even played on World Junior teams. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin so I can't see the deleted articles but judging from the debates I counted only three who had any sort of references and in all of those debates the references were deemed trivial. That's in contrast to the half a dozen references that I have provided with all of them not being trivial. In the second part of your argument you're confusing the playing experience of a player and the notability of player. There completely different things. For example players in the NBA's D-League might have more experience than a high school player but the high school player may be notable while the D-League player might not. There are numerous articles of high school basketball players on Wikipedia. They currently do not meet WP:ATHLETE but they do meet WP:NOTABILITY. As consensus has shown, no specific notability guidelines, such as WP:ATHLETE, can override the general notability guideline. Schroeder fails ATHLETE and any HOCKEY standard but meets notability through the references provided. Eóin (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing he could even be considered notable for is being an athlete. And you admit he fails WP:ATHLETE. We're not process whores here. And I can see the deleted articles...and there is nothing special about this one. --Smashville^talk 17:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An athlete does not need to meet ATHLETE to have an article on Wikipedia. If the subject meets notability it can have an article. There are dozens, probably hundreds, of basketball and football players who have articles on Wikipedia that have yet to be drafted or meet ATHLETE. As I stated above ATHLETE is a specific notability guidelines that cannot override the general notability guideline. Schroeder is notable for being an athlete but does not meet ATHLETE. That's not a contradiction, athletes can be notable and not meet ATHLETE. Could you point me to one of the articles that was deleted with more references than this one? None of the AfDs you just listed seemed to have any significant coverage and were rightfully deleted. Eóin (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other articles with non notable football and basketball players exist doesn't mean that this one should. He does not meet athlete nor general notability guidelines. When and if he become notable this article can easily be recreated and Wikipedia will have a fine piece for a young athlete, but until then we can not accept articles such as this one since we would be flooded with thousands of article with players who has achieved nothing in their junior career. I'm not saying that Schroeder is a bad player, of course I know of him and I'm certain that he will be a very good player some day, but so far he has done nothing to justify an article on Wikipedia. Regards. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never used the argument other stuff exists. I referred to notable athletes that compete in amateur leagues that meet notability standards but do not ATHLETE standards. One example of the type of athlete I'm referring to is Colt McCoy. No one in their right mind would nominate the article for deletion and yet McCoy fails ATHLETE completely. While Schroeder hasn't received nearly as much coverage as McCoy he has still received enough to be considered notable. The over half dozen articles that have more than 500 words about Schroeder which were published in reliable sources show this. How good a player is has nothing to do if the player is notable or not. Most good players do receive coverage but notability is dependent on coverage not skill. I've never heard of Schroeder before this AfD and I have never followed hockey. I don't think Schroeder is worthy of an article for being a good player but I do think he deserves an article because he is notable. I don't see the point of recreating an article in the future when an athlete is more notable when the athlete meets notability requirements now. Eóin (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colt McCoy does not play college hockey. College hockey is not the highest amateur form of hockey. College football is the highest amateur form of football - and we still don't consider all of those players notable unless they have performed at a peak level. Colt McCoy has also set an NCAA record and won a national award. You're comparing an NCAA-record holding QB to a freshman hockey player with 2 goals and 8 points to his credit for his career. It's apples to oranges. --Smashville^talk 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want to open the floodgates? You could find just as much and even more on virtually any player projected to go top 50ish in the upcoming NHL draft. They are not notable, yet, but if this article is kept we set precedent that all those players are notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. But history shows that many of them will never play at a higher level then they are at right now. We would get hundreds of articles with players who never played anything else then junior hockey. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how many more articles do you feel Schroeder needs to satisfy WP:N?--Bauerhoc9 (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He simply does not, he is an ice hockey player, and regardless of how many articles are published about him as an ice hockey player he must meet the criteria for a athletes—WP:N does not cancel out other notability policies. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:N does not cancel out other notability policies." False. WP:ATHLETE is a supplement to WP:N. Subjects whom pass the usual notability standard, which Schroeder does, don't become unnotable by being athletes.--Bauerhoc9 (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Bauerhoc9. Take a look at this recent discussion involving specific notability guidelines and the general notability guideline. A summary and discussion is available here. Consensus has shown that specific notability guidelines like ATHLETE or any hockey project guidelines cannot override the general notability guideline. WP:N cancels every and all other notability policies. Schroeder meets notability with more than half dozen significant articles about him published in reliable sources. Eóin (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which all focus on him as a hockey player, something he is not notable for yet... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Un-indenting) Can you please state why the references provided are not enough to satisfy notability. As the consensus in the discussion that I linked to says, it does not matter that Schroeder fails notability for hockey players. All that matters is that he meets notability in general. The references show that he does. Eóin (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well quality of sources is the major issue, just to take one example, one of them is just a conversation posted to the papers website. Which based on the information on the website, anyone can post such a conversation with anyone involved in the local arts/sports scene etc. Which in effect is a blog which is not a reliable source, almost all the other sources are from a single newspaper, and the ones that aren't from that single newspaper are trivial mentions. -Djsasso (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want to get truly technical, WP:IAR comes in here. Common sense says that if a player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, then he is not a notable athlete, regardless of whether or not the local paper likes to write articles about their high school players. --Smashville^talk 15:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm assuming the reference your referring to is this one. It's not a blog entry and it can't be posted by anyone. Its an interview by 25 year sports columnist Bob Sansevere. It's published in the paper and typically takes up half of the second page in the sports section. I count significant references are from three different papers. How many different newspapers should there be?
    - As someone else mentioned above the newspapers are regional not local. The Star Tribune is published in five states and the Pioneer Press in two. I'm arguing that if a subject is notable it should have an article, I'm not being technical. Eóin (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the subject, in this case Schroeder, is not notable since he does not meet the criteria for athletes, which is what the published articles focus on. I believe this player will be notable in time and then this article can be recreated, but that is not the case for the thousands of other players which the same argument could be used on. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 17:19, 8 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 Result was Speedy A7 by TexasAndroid. Non-admin closure. Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Mildrad

Bio / obituary of non-notable person, no source given to establish notability. Boffob (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. No sources (whatsoever) provided or found. Smells like someone misses their aunt. That's sad, but it doesn't make her notable. Probable speedy. So tagged. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP is not a memorial and I can't find anything that would prove her notability (and this doesn't change if you spell her name as it is generally spelt: Mildred.) As for the claim that she is the 152nd oldest person to ever live, I would say that this is complete rubbish and only put in to avoid WP:CSD... somthing backed up by this list. one brave monkey 17:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Sorry your aunt died, but she's not notable enough to have her own article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:12, 3 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 WP:G12. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information intensity

Solely a dictionary definition, possible neologism as well. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF and possible original research.--Boffob (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a copyvio of this Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:09, 4 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. Sandstein 23:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bible and Spade

This has had a notability tag on it since August and the question has been raised on the article talk page as to why.If it is, as stated, an archaeological journal, I would expect it to be referenced in other archaeological books and articles, especially as it seems to have been around since 1972. I think it fails our notability criteria. dougweller (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —dougweller (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable journal as it does not have 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. Springnuts (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It took me less than a minute to find one with Google News. Are you saying you searched and no RS'es exist, or that you don't see any in the article at the moment? Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Why didn't you link it? I can't find one with Google News. Just a mention of a hit doesn't establish notability. And yes, there are none in the article. dougweller (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While searching on Google, I found several pages citing the journal, but I don't have access to the right databases to do a comprehensive search. Still, the magazine has been around for ages and is published by a reliable publisher. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Definite~~ Keep -- This looks like a respectable ~~academic~~ journal to me (though with its own POV). It is not new; ~~has a respectable academci publisher~~; and an academic editor. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- what makes Associates for Biblical Research an academic publisher? They are a Creationist organisation, and according to their website [22]"BIBLE and SPADE is a non-technical quarterly publication published by the Associates for Biblical Research. It is written from a scholarly and conservative viewpoint, supporting the inerrancy of the Biblical record" and "Archaeological evidence, properly interpreted, upholds the history of the Bible. Bible and Spade shows you how!" I don't see the publisher as either reliable or academic, and 'being around for ages' it not evidence of notability. dougweller (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After amending comments above -- still a Keep -- I accept that my description above was inaccurate; hence the changes. I had not gone beyond the article. The journal has its own POV, an extreme conservative evangelical one. The position of inerrancy of the Biblical record is a legitimate one. My own position is not so strong, but that is my POV. I do not believe the doctrines of the Latter Day Saints or the Jehovah's Witnesses, but they too are widely held views. Accordingly, WP does not take its own POV and delete articles on them because many editors (like me) do not believe them. The present article is a mere stub, but that is no reason for deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a nonsense journal is not a reason for deletion. It does not have to be referenced by archaelogical journals. That sounds like tautological reasoning (how do we decide what counts as a archaelogical journal, do they all have to referenced by other archaelogical journals). Notability would be lacking if it was found this journal wasn't followed by its target audience (biblical archaelogists). Which does not seem to be the case.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News search for "Bible and Spade" finds plenty of relevant hits. this one for example. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That one shows notability for Wood, I'm not disputing that. It briefly mentions Bible and Spade, but that's all. We need more. dougweller (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which relevant notability guide do you believe this article does not meet? Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Furthermore, Google Scholar appers to have plenty of citations to Bible and Spade. Why is this being nominated again? Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Again, why don't you link any? Yes, there a lot of hits directly to the journal, they don't have anything to do with notability. Quite a few hits directly to Bible & Spade: intro to biblical archaeology - Caiger S L, 1936 and others indirectly to it, eg Shifting Sands By Thomas W. Davis. Can we please have some sources we can discuss here, not just claims of Ghits? And when was it nominated before? This shows up as the first nomination, a Google search of Wikipedia doesn't show it as being nominated before. dougweller (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that per WP:BEFORE it's your job, as nominator, to make a good faith effort to search for sources, but I'll help you out. google news results 4-8, 10, and 14 appear to reference this journal. In a Google Scholar search, the first 13 citations all appear to be articles from this journal. Google Books references inclue one, two, three (but no preview), four, five (snippet only), six, seven (snippet again, sorry), and eight... and that should be enough, no? Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, and to clarify the "again" bit, I meant "What was the stated rationale for this deletion, in light of this easy pile of evidence that awaited?" rather than "Why is this being nominated for deletion a second time?" Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - comment Not impressed by these cites - they do not support notability of the journal. Where are the sources discussing the impact of this journal?. A directory would certainly need to list this journal - but WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The problem is not article quality or truth/falsehood - just notability of the topic. Springnuts (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment This 'easy pile of reference' includes things such as "gardening: Turning over a new LEAF!(Features) Subscription - Coventry Evening Telegraph - HighBeam Research - Apr 21, 2001 And the figure of St Fiacre, the patron saint of gardeners, again carved by Andy from a cherry tree, complete with rosary beads, Bible and spade. ..." - an article about a statue of a figure holding a Bible and spade! Jclemens has done an indiscriminate search to show lots of hits that include the phrase, a few of which may be about the journal, who knows, but many are about the earlier book or just a general use of the phrase. This is not at all helpful and is used to accompany what looks like a personal attack on me. dougweller (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply If you'll read my posting more carefully, you'll see that I specified WHICH hits were relevant. You appear to have ignored my listing and cherry-picked the irrelevant ones, and then accuse me both of an "indiscriminate search" and an attack on you. This conduct, the prior refusal to seek out sources supporting notability, and the sheer number of edits you've made to this AfD call into question your motivation in arguing so strenuously for this deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I admit that I missed what you were doing. But 'Sword of the Lord' publishing? Quality is what counts here, as I'm sure you know. As for strenuous, no, I'm not being strenuous, but I am trying to be precise. I could just as easily say you are arguing strenuously for a keep, but what would be the point of saying that? There have been some clear errors, which is frustrating, ie people saying it's published by a reputable academic publisher because the article mistakenly said it was published by Sage, or the WorldCat search below. And above, you found a good article but it was all about Wood with just a brief mention of the publication. Do you really think that was good enough to show notability? dougweller (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Actually, yes, I do think that being cited in a variety of popular religious writings establishes sufficient notability. The magazine has a POV, but it's been around for a while (i.e., it doesn't appear to be a flash-in-the-pan) and is referenced by multiple other independent sources sharing that POV. I know others hold in good faith a much more narrow view of the GNG than I do--I just don't happen to agree. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently notable. Has about 50 to 100 hits on WorldCat--- hard to tell exactly, because it was published with break of many years & libraries arent careful about reporting accurately for things like that. since this represents only relatively mainstream institutions, and does include places like Harvard and Haverford, I conclude its a reasonably respectable journal, from a biblical inerrancy point of view. It's not much concerned with creationism, by the way, rather with OT history--check the table of contents. [23]. DGG (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment DGG, please look again, I can't find more than a handful. Most of those are pre-1972 when publishing began, some of the later ones just use the phrase and aren't about the journal, at least one is an audio by Wood, etc. In fact, when you restrict the search to journals and 1972 and after, you get exactly 3 hits. I don't see Harvard or Haverford by the way. dougweller (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewritten into a more standard format - though I still believe it is NN and should be deleted as indicated above. Springnuts (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - NOTE TO THOSE WHO THOUGHT IT WAS PUBLISHED BY AN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER*** It is not published by Sage, that claim was added less than an hour before I put this up for AfD. It is published by Associates for Bible Research [24], an organisation dedicated to proving the historical reliability of the Bible. dougweller (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment And to those of us looking at the GNG, this matters not in the least. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw I corrected that mistake, but I think the Sage claim was a good faith error when the info box was added - probably the info box was copied from another journal and the Sage info just got carried over with it. It makes no difference to this debate. Springnuts (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure it was a good faith error. It may have led people to a keep vote if they based it on being a Sage publication, I certainly would never nominate something published by Sage. But it probably makes no difference to the outcome of this debate. And thanks for catching it. dougweller (talk) 11:15, 8 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) Icewedge (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Lucien

I don't think the article meets Wikipedia's notability guideline as stated on WP:MUS Richard Jackson (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep international tour = passes WP:MUSIC. I don't see any reason to make an exception to the usual standards here. Wily D 17:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surely enough facts on iTunes release and online links to keep him on, as well as links to Spanish charting siteUser:Thaliafan User talk:Thaliafan 20:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.109.1.15 (talk) [reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes #2 of WP:MUSIC.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:33, 5 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 Between You and Me, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between You & Me

I'm not sure about this, I'm not arguing that a single by Ali Lohan wouldn't be notable (generally anything by her could easily pass WP:MUSIC due to her releases on Interscope), but this single seems to be all rumors, both in the way it reads as well as the fact that there are no sources other than facebook. Did a quick google search for both "Between you and me" and "Between you and me Ali Lohan", nothing related came up for either. Additionally, the album that this single is supposedly from doesn't have an article. If it weren't concerning Lohan, I'd say speedy delete under A9. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ali Lohan. - Non-notable. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This song fails WP:MUSIC, but a redirect to Ali Lohan would not make sense. Instead, I suggest to Between You and Me, a notable song by Christian rock group dc Talk, as that would be a likely alternate spelling for that song. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then when (and if) this song passes WP:MUSIC then it could be recreated under a new title such as Between You & Me (Ali Lohan song)? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Between You and Me as a possible alternative search time. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Between You and Me". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:23, 3 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 Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Gauntlet 3 . After deletion. Sandstein 23:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Roessler

Non-noteworthy cast member of a reality TV show Nightscream (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Gauntlet III (the only one of the listed shows he actually won) which would make him notable in the context of that show. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:38, 5 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 Speedily Deleted by Orangemike (NAC) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KadmusArts

Not-notable, overly promotional in tone, all "references" are simply mentions on other website's external links pages. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the more I look at this, the more I think this speedy-able, none of the "references" are valid reliable sources and there's no other assertion of notability. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:12, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Wage (Music Video)

Nominate for Deletion - unnotable. An article about a music video based on an unnotable song by an unnotable performer. Currently content is mostly external links. No claim to notability. Speedy was declined on technical grounds. --T-rex 15:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my speedy and PROD. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's easy to say the band is not notable, but I can't even find the band's name to confirm it. Does anyone know what band released this video? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No secondary sources, non-notable artist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable artist, just because it is on IMDB doesn't mean it's notable. _David ^WS _(contribs) 00:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:38, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew England

Resume-like bio of a upper-middle management banker. Does not seem any more noteworthy than hundreds of other bankers. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to notability --T-rex 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is about an award to his employer, but his picture in in the article and he's quoted. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no claim to notabilityPaste (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pace Eastmain--it takes more than one quote to achieve notability, I think. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing the Devil

Non-notable unreleased album with little media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - future album with no release date or tracklisting --T-rex 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article says he's trying to release it this year, but since no definite date is set, this article remains speculation until it is actually released. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:33, 3 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 Wang Ju-Rong. Sandstein 23:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Rainbow Fan

NN martial art style. No assertion of notability, no sources other than a personal website. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wang Ju-Rong, who appears to be notable (if her unsourced WP article is accurate). JJL (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: She currently has a ProD tag on her article. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable art reads like an advert, I would have tagged it for a speedy --Nate1481 09:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't object to a merge, but some re-phrasing would be needed (thougth most has been done) --Nate 14 81 11:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wang Ju-Rong. jmcw (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also would have no issues with a merge, especially now that references have been improved. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article is now merged as a section in the Wang Ju-Rong article. Flying Rainbow Fan redirects to this section. jmcw (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I propose a (non-admin) close of the discussion, then. JJL (talk) 18:46, 8 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tung-Wang

Disputed prod. Even though Phil Bridger added some references, I still do not see how he passes WP:BIO, but I'd like to throw this one up to AfD. Thanks. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I admit that the references are a bit weak - the first is published by AuthorHouse (a self-publishing house) and the second is a translation of something written by the subject - but I thought it better to get more eyes on this rather than let it get deleted with prod. The Internet wasn't around in the late 9th century so sources may not all be available online, and even for those that are they would probably be in Chinese or, if in English, may use different transliterations. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Historically noteworthy author. We shouldn't expect authors dead 1000 years to engage in the same kind of publicity whoring that we expect from modern authors. Meets WP:N, if anything, historical cases should be held to more lienent standards than modern ones due to issues of significance of publications with time and all that. Wily D 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How is he historically noteworthy? I'd be willing to withdraw this AfD if someone can establish notability. DARTH PANDA ^duel 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just having a record of an author from 1200 years ago is an indication of notablity and Phil has shown modern English langauge sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep classic authors with surviving works are notable, especially if there are modern publications about them. DGG (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are you sure "The Lighter Side" of Global Village News is really a reliable source? And the self-published book just contains a reprint of the same joke, as far as I can see. Juzhong (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of source and content. Rewrite a possible, but need more content. --Vsion (talk) 05:29, 7 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 A7, non-admin closure. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Charisma

Unsigned folk group which does not meet any criteria of WP:MUSIC. Assertion of notability within the article relies on inheriting notability due to covering notable songs or counting Youtube views and torrent downloads (and represents fairly small numbers of each). Previously A7'ed, and recreator edit summary promised sources to be added which have not materialized. Lastly, user Sc0ttkclark may have WP:COI issues, as the band was started by Scott Clark. gnfnrf (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7 - a couple of hundred views/downloads over a period of months is no claim of significance at all. Marasmusine (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Tagged as such. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D per above. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:51, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna lieb

Advert-toned bio for a non-notable model turned writer. Person fails WP:BIO. Reliable source coverage not found. Credits are minor. Disputed prod. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for mainly failing the WP:BIO guideline, specifically the part relevant to pornographic actors or models. one brave monkey 14:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though I'm quite impressed that she has a MySpace page (with pictures, considered a spiritual oasis & with a large amount of traffic), I don't see the Facebook page that would tip the balance... or not. No evidence of notability, but lots of vague claims ("a major showing" (who called it major?), "Several features" (cites?), "was ranked #2 in popularity" (ranked by whom?), etc.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find reliable independent sources to establish notability. You'd expect at least one Google News hit from someone who is supposed to be "one of the most popular models in the world". --Boffob (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--whoa, that's about as pushy and vague an advertisement as one will find on WP. I don't see any notability either (and couldn't resist adding a few fact-tags to the article). Drmies (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - as it stands right now, there's no coherent argument for notability on the page. I can see however a couple of bits which might be enough to make her notable, but someone'll have to do some research to properly develop it. The bits I see are her mainstream appearances:

Part in Swedish soap "Vanner och Fiender" (how extensive a part? Cameo, or was it more than that?)
Hostess for DestinationTV on ABC (again, how extensive?)
Lead role in video "summer party" starring (Heather Caroline Playboy's Miss April 2002) and Jacy Andrews
Winner of "Internet Model of the year" (who awarded this?)

Sadly, I'm too under-the-weather right now to do that research myself right now. Tabercil (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Tatarian (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent reliable source proves notability per WP:PORNBIO. Tosqueira (talk) 04:05, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Navetta

Does not appear to meet WP:N or WP:MUSIC. No notability outside of a band. Unsourced BLP until 10/31/08, now I guess that doesn't apply. Redirect to band was reverted. Most ghits appear to be death notices. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 12 Google book hits in reliable sources, including but not limited to All Music Guide: The Experts Guide to the Best Recordings indicates notability. Although I lament and rail against editors who neglect to source their creations, such sourcing is available should anyone wish to bother. Deletion should be a last resort, undertaken when other efforts to improve an article have failed. Dloh cierekim 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see in those book entries, they are all just mentioning him as a member of the band. Much like his name is mentioned in the band's article. Based on these, it doesn't seem that he is notable outside the band. They are all just summary articles/entries about the band. He appears to be only of mention in the context of the band and nowhere else. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man is a punk legend, that should be more than enough to keep his article up on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsville (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Descendents (band) -- none of the content in this article is appropriately sourced. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dlohcierekim just showed there's at least reliable source available. Why the hurry to redirect? If there's one source of this quality there's bound to be more which can be added. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man named and founded one of the most influential rock bands of the eighties. Had it not been for his efforts, many bands, such as Weezer, would not have been able to forge a path into the music business. This page may not be as informative as other pages on members of the Descendents (see Milo Aukerman, but given the current circumstances regarding his death, there is bound to be one or more visitors who realize the need for further information who are able to provide it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DEWadict (talk • contribs) 23:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. He was a founding member of one of the most influential punk bands ever! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.67.24 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article just needs a re-write, and a spiffing up. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:40, 5 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 (G11). - Mgm|^(talk) 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Previously speedied for the same reason by Orangemike on October 29.[reply]

Pixmac

Delete (nominator): I originally tagged this as "advertising -speedy delete" when it appeared as a new page, but the editor removed the tag. I do not believe this to be a 'noteable' article.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 12:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete possible speedy delete G12, per Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING. This is an advert for a company pure and simple. --neon white talk 12:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. One cannot just remove a CSD tag from a page. Edit undone (page retagged). DARTH PANDA ^duel 13:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — nothing but processed meat from Hormel. MuZemike (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not really an advertisement, but I am inclined to think that it isn't notable. I can't evaluate the Czech-language ghits. It doesn't show up well on Google in English. This search of .cz sites shows lots of hits, but I can't tell if any are reliable sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. --Yopie 16:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divya (Singer)

Declined speedy. Did some research, but I couldn't find evidence of her existance either through Google or GNews. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am the admin that declined the speedy, which I did on the basis of some information which is no longer in the current form of the article. To see the older version, check here.[25] Since there were plausible assertions of notability there, I felt that a speedy deletion was not appropriate. I have no strong preference on the content either way, but would say it depends on whether or not sources can be found to verify the information. --El on ka 17:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cheers! If the information there about her having songs that were in the charts is true, I will happily withdraw my nomination. Unfortunately, I was unable to find her through a Google search and I don't know where I can find a history of the charts. DARTH PANDA ^duel 22:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —El on ka 17:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:40, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Alliluyev

Non-notable person per WP:BIO. Person doesn't establish his own notability. Lugnuts (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - recipient of substantial independent reliable published material. Thusly notable under WP:BIO. I see no reason to make a special exception in this case. Wily D 14:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Notability is not inherited. However, in this case, is known (not well) in the news and in books, yet they all stem from his status as the grandson of Stalin. I would argue that he still fails WP:BIO. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Family members of famous politicians are notable. See articles about family members of Barack Obama or George W. Bush for example. --Tocino 20:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF Lugnuts (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Joseph Stalin. Did do nothing to warrant separate article, but being the only grandson of Stalin might be interesting for people research Stalin, thus the merge. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the grandmother of Barak Obama (who is not yet President of the USA, and may indeed not become so) is in, then the grandson of a head of state and one of the most prominent figures of the 20th century (who actually knew him) can surely be accorded a small amount of space. Guthrum (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepScanlan (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? should it be kept?

Delete- notability is not inherited. If this person was not related to Stalin nobody would ever have heard of him. Reyk _YO! 08:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP-If notability is not inherited, then it isn't relative either. We should deleted the siblings, parents or grandparents of notable people as well. Such as Madelyn Dunham Grandmother of Barack Obama. The Article is weak and needs to be expanded and cited, but, there are plenty of insubstantial articles such as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaz171 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:WP:OTHERSTUFF Lugnuts (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Enough third-party sources, including a few full-length obituaries in prominent sources, to satisfy WP:BIO as I read it. --Delirium (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are multiple obituaries and other articles published about Alliluyev. While these sources need to be better integrated into the article, the reliable and verifiable sources do satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Need for cleanup is not a reason for deletion. I will reconsider my vote if the article is updated in the immediate future. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As is the usual case with marginally notable relatives. See Malia Obama for reference. Alliluyev does not indicated individual notability. TN‑X-Man 14:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's a historical article!!! --Mr. Mario (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable enough, it's a matter of interest really rather than pure reference. I have his obituary in a copy of today's The Independent so I'll add more info when I have the time.--89.241.70.144 (talk) 18:07, 8 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. henrik•talk 12:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that before and after this AfD debate, this article was also extensively discussed here, where several points raised here were disputed.

John R. Smith

See WP:ANI#DYK hoax article?: this article appears to be a well-crafted hoax, all sources it provides don't actually mention this person. Also, obviously, this man coudn't be the first person to receive Silver Star because it was established in 1932 - years after his death. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax, and block the SPA indef. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chase me ladies. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no more arguments needed. Everyme 12:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete - need I say more? --Flewis^(talk) 12:11, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Nielsen

Unsure if any of the claims in this article really stack up to notability. Grateful either way, as the article could do with improvement to properly explain notability if it exists. Dweller (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability here. --neon white talk 12:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only assertion of notability can be found in the "first wedding proposal to have been made in a published book," but info is unsourced and I could find no evidence to support such a claim. Therefore fails WP:BIO and possibly WP:A7. WP:NOTBLOG and WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:42, 5 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. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1099 Pro

Article does not establish anything close to notability. It was marked for speedy deletion twice times, and the primary author has removed each speedy delete tag. The company might be notable-- I hope that the author can bring in some documentation of that fact, but I'm leaning towards delete because of the repeated removal of the speedy delete tags. Avram (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The link to an IRS press release adds some good info. If this company is really processing millions of tax filings, as the IRS says, then there must be something notable to say. I am concerned with the way in which the article's creator has reacted to the proposed deletion, but the important thing is ultimately content.Avram (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject of substantial third party published materials; as an example, consider this Los Angeles Times article. It's easy enough to find many others with Google News or whatever you favour. Thusly passes WP:N - I see no reason to deviate from the usual notability standards here. Wily D 14:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I see nothing but a Press Release through Google News. The article is written so much like an advertisement, it's difficult to get past that to see any notability. The IRS release shows that with a complete rewrite it could possibly merit inclusion, but not now. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Choose all dates rather than past month for the news story dates and reliable third party stories will appear. WilyD 16:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Ok...still, nothing notable is apparent. More press releases and some court cases Google News link. Also, I don't mean to go on a tangent, but whose responsibility is it to dig around and assert notability? Currently, there's certainly nothing jumping out, and if someone wants to scour the 'net AND update the article, go ahead.. but again, as of now, I don't see it meeting wp:n. I welcome comments/views on this, on my talk page or here. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They may or may not do a lot of form processing. I don't care, it isn't notable without substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Incidentally, if that lead paragraph ("1099 Pro, Inc. develops information-reporting solutions and services for 1099, W-2 and 1042-S filers. 1099 Pro develops and markets a range of products that enables businesses or institution to effectively manage and comply with all 1099, W-2 and 1042-S filing requirements.") isn't written by the company, I'm the Queen of Spain (which I'm not). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company. (Also no context - author provides a link to 1099 as though this defines the company's activiites!) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Appears non-notable, and reads like advertising. I agree with Omarcheeseboro that it could merit inclusion if rewritten from a neutral viewpoint.The Fiddly Leprechaun (talk) 14:49, 5 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. speedily or snowily. StarM 03:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WSR SRC Conference 2008

This unreferenced article contains no clue as to why the subject is at all notable Mattinbgn\^talk 08:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as per WP:GNG. ThePointblank (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable event. - Longhair\^talk 08:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. WWGB (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WWGB - a student conference with no showing of importance at all. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete does not even get one Google hit Michellecrisp (talk) 00:13, 4 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. StarM 03:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamer Mol

Non-notable footballer, yet to play in an all-fully-professional competition and therefore fails to meet WP:ATHLETE Mattinbgn\^talk 08:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not played in a professional league or even at the highest level in amateur sports, so therefore fails to meet WP:ATHLETE. ThePointblank (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator's rationale (and heck I even support the Northern Bullants but sorry he is not worthy of an article as yet).--VS ^talk 08:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amateur sportsman; clearly fails WP:ATHLETE Murtoa (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence that subject passes any notability guidelines, particularly WP:ATHLETE which of all notability criteria, has the lowest requirements.--Boffob (talk) 20:01, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Nakshawani

Unreferenced biographical entry with no attempt to establish notability despite being tagged as unsourced for nearly two years. Notability tag was in place for a year and was removed at some point with no explanation. Plus notability is not inherited. Mfield (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:PEOPLE. This person is not notable because he or she has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. ThePointblank (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be little more than a vanity page. Dman727 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything here which claims notability. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity page with no reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced vanity page. However I hope we will get some comments on this from those who watch the Islam AFD list, and should know if he is in fact notable. The article certainly suggests that he is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment it helps get reasonable comments when the nomination specifies the subject field and notifies appropriate people. The subject is a lecturer on Islamic subjects working for a UK Ph.D. He apparently lectures in Arabic to Islamic groups. I notice that earlier version of t he article such as [26] have much fuller information. This does not mean I think the article defensible unless such things as comments about him from UK arabic news sources were added, but I wouldn't expect to find much in any sources i could understand. I would have expected the nom to contact the relevant workgroup before bringing it here, & other major contributors besides the originator of the article. DGG (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier versions of the article contain more information, but all that information has been removed as baseless peacock claims or controversial claims with no place in a biographical article. No attempt has been made in the intervening time to replace any of this information with anything cited. I am no expert in Islamic teaching and listing this here will bring it to the attention of those that are. I would also have expected at least one editor who has this on their watchlist to have done something bout the issues if there were anything to be done. Mfield (talk) 00:16, 5 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. Combination of SNOW and the fact that charted hits equals notability. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 14:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fearless (Taylor Swift song)

Fails WP:NSONGS. The source for the charting lists "Love Story" as the current single. Nabudis Shadow (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, So, the reference is wrong. Did you think of maybe going to look for the proper one just in case the editor cut 'n pasted the wrong one in before you nominated the article? I've updated the references. It's charted, it's referenced, and the article has the definite possibility to grow, as per the criteria of WP:MUSIC#Songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esradekan (talk • contribs) 10:54, November 3, 2008

Cheers Panda. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable, charting single --T-rex 15:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has charted very high on the charts, thus is quite notable CloversMallRat (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a top 10 Billboard Hot 100 hit which should make it notable. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Top Ten hit on a major chart, I'm sure there's something to say about it. "Love Story" is her current country single, "Fearless" just overlapped with it on all the other charts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:39, 6 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. Cirt (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chuck Weekly Ratings

WP:NOT#STATS. Overly trivial. I was originally going to suggest merging into List of Chuck episodes, but the source given is a blog, not a reliable source. Prod contested by IP user. Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ThePointblank (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these statistics. Cliff smith ^talk 19:36, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Printmakers

No material claim to notability. Inspection of several pages of hits generated by a Google search for "Greenwich Printmakers" did not reveal any significant coverage by independent sources (though lots of directory entries). Bongomatic (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:COMPANY. Non-notable, is not covered by reliable secondary sources. ThePointblank (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CORP. Couldn't find anything to back up the claims of notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:44, 5 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 Music (Madonna album). Cirt (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing (Madonna song)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Barely even a promo release, no references, original research, questionable picture Paul75 (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect into Music (Madonna album). Not enough reliable coverage from sources that are independent of the subject. ThePointblank (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Music (Madonna album). Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Not a single, so the redirect is questionable, but what the heck, redirects are cheap. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Music (Madonna album). The song's single release was shelved and there is not enough material in the article to sustain a separate entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:52, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Zeitgeist Movement

Only sources seem to be bloggers and some idiot with spray paint at Oklahoma State University. The source from Stillwater Newspress doesn't seem to even know (or care) what the Zeitgeist movement is. Delete--Phirazo (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : absoulte drivel. Paul75 (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Daily O'Collegian article is a bit more coherent. The vandalism has gotten the movement some press coverage, although probably not the type of coverage it wanted to receive. Perhaps all the people googling Zeitgeist Movement after seeing the vandalism make the movement notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no meaningful content whatsoever. JuJube (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A handful of area papers covering a graffiti incident does not make this movement notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. umm Paul75, your comment is considered spam. ths article does need more info in it, there is a lot of objective info on their site that could be summarized in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.40.33 (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC) — 79.112.40.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Again I see these quick delete requests, even if the article hasn't existed for more than a few hours, being stub'd AND talkpage include information about more sources are coming. Reading deletion arguments of Paul75, JuJube, Eastmain & Someguy1221 makes me wonder what's going on. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to have not read, at the very least, what Eastmain wrote. Xe is pointing to some sources, for discussion. Xe is doing the very thing that you promised to do on the talk page, but actually haven't done as yet. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What I believe the chaps above mean is that WP is neither a news repository nor somewhere to start your revolution. If it could be verified that this is in fact a notable movement, using reliable, third-party, published sources, then we should absolutely have an article about it. Until then, removal is the best option. one brave monkey 10:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Having trawled through another Google search on this, it does look to have pervaded the Intertron a fair bit. However, the comments seem to be largely blog-based which won't stand up on their own. This needs to hit mainstream media or elicit more high-profile comment before it comes close to WP:RS. one brave monkey 11:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is not for promoting original ideas. There's no evidence of this having any significant coverage or even enough to accurately explain what it is let alone why it is notable. --neon white talk 12:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How does being stubbed have anything to do with this discussion? I don't see this article's sources or potential therefor as being sufficient to pass the notability test. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A made-up movement with vague aims does not become notable merely by motivating a lone vandal. This is the extent of the reliable sourced coverage. Question: is the spelling Zeitgeist (correct in other contexts) or Zeigeist (used by the only real source)? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think your "lone vandal" theory stands up to the varient spellings and handwritings. If future generations actually discuss this, though, I'll eat my shoes. The point should be that the article is about the supposed movement, but the coverage is about a one-time, locally, briefly notable event. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely trivial. lack of sources with anything to say --T-rex 16:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is really nothing redeeming about the article. If this "movement" is really notable, it should eventually get significant coverage from some reliable news sources, but until that day, it doesn't belong on WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezgamer (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or should I say "Deleet"). From the school newspaper, we know they can't spell "Zeitgeist" (making their name a poor choice). Our article informs us they are a "thret" to Christianity (cue billions of Christians shaking in their boots). Yes, Google kicks up five reliable-ish sources: three from October 10, two from October 13, all reporting the vandalism. If anyone feels those sources are enough, the article should be moved to Zeigeist Movement vandalism incident (with a redirect from "Zeitgeist..."). I don't feel the incident is anything beyond a minor blip on the local news radar. The "movement" seems to be something thought up while getting high after Phil. 101. If the movement is later cited as a cause for dropping religiosity, then we'll have something. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because I'm part of the conspiracy. In all seriousness, no reliable sources to establish notability of this "movement".--Boffob (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Boffob. Cool Hand Luke 00:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It is not notable per guide (as of now). I googled it to come to this conclusion. Widefox (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I get your points. It's maybe a bit early to create this article. I created it because I found out that Z-day (Google: Z-day Zeitgeist - 23700 matches) was a happening at many universities over the globe 2007 and that there are a lot of planning going on for 2008 Z-day - which is the basic's of a movement. AND as I checked the charactaristics of existing Movement articles - I got the impression that it would qualify for existance after a little help from other Wikipedians. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for inclusion is not that something exists, it's that it has been 'noted' by relaible second party sources, otherwie the article will consist of nothing but speculation and original research. --neon white talk 12:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment "Z-day" does seem to be on a lot of blogs and such (which doesn't confer notability), but Z-day springs from the movie that the movement seems to have taken its name from. Much like the notability of Christmas has nothing to do with whether or not the Christian Bowling League is notable, "Z-day" showing up in, say, the New York Times would not in any way make "The Zeitgeist Movement" notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's coverage will considerably increase, mark my words. Just give it time. 124.180.117.165 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - If/when that happens, it might merit an article. At present, it does not. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your words have been duly marked You may want to note, 124.180.117.165, that Zeitgeist, the Movie was deleted, and then undeleted after it had received siginificant coverage in reliable second party sources. --Phirazo (talk) 20:20, 5 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. I've closed this one under speedy deletion criteria A1. "Guitar Hero 5 will be the 5th Guitar Hero game" is essentially no information whatsoever. Marasmusine (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero 5

WP:CRYSTAL - A Google search of Guitar Hero 5 (and Guitar Hero V) turn up speculation of the unofficially announced sequel along with forum/blog posts which are unreliable and unverifiable. A search of Activision's press release site do not turn up any results for any information pertaining to a "Guitar Hero 5" or "Guitar Hero V". Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 04:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL Editors cannot stare into their crystal balls and make guesses about a sequel to a game that came out a week ago. --Phirazo (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smash this guitar with a crystal hammer. It is kind of like Hammer, but with video games. Delete. MuZemike (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Guitar Hero V redirects to Guitar Hero 5. If this article is to be deleted, the redirect should also be deleted. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 04:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Icewedge (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Booed off stage per CRYSTAL ( I follow GH news closely, and while there's likely a 5th flagship title, its not yet even mentioned) --MASEM 04:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Fourth installment was only released last week. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 05:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is no amount of star power that can recover from this crystal ball, so delete. ViperSnake151 15:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guitar Hero Alexnia (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is what it was changed to by another editor, but I had reverted it back as there is no mention of Guitar Hero V in the Guitar Hero series article. Besides, Guitar Hero V hasn't even been officially announced. The only future Guitar Hero games are Guitar Hero: Metallica and a possible Guitar Hero: Beatles. Think about it, would you have Guitar Hero: AC/DC (should it ever get created by someone who just adds speculation) redirect to the series article when no such information exists about that topic in the article in which it redirects to? --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 19:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect. I think anyone looking for Guitar Hero 5 is looking for the future of the Guitar Hero series in general. --T-rex 21:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and because the article doesn't say much ATM anyway Firebat08 (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.--SkyWalker (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too crystal at this point --T-rex 16:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (Insert witty explanation based on WP:CRYSTAL here) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Delete just for funsies. WP:CRYSTAL has appropriately pwned Guitar Hero. Definetly WP:SNOW.--Koji† 00:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect to Guitar Hero, otherwise delete and salt. This will just end up making a return otherwise. --Izno (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop building SNOWmen and just close this? Delete it and redirect/salt if needed. Grandmartin11 (talk) 01:11, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg H. Sims

No reliable third party sources provided in article and I was unable to locate any via Google. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a advertising or a puff piece, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Also fails WP:BIO; no reliable secondary sources to be found. ThePointblank (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. Ridiculous WP:SPAM, but imdb asserts that he exists and has produced several movies. It gives him enough notability to pass WP:BIO. DARTH PANDA ^duel 13:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify which portion of WP:BIO he passes? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. If you check his imbd page, he has several movies. That qualifies for your reliable third-part source. Furthermore, if you check the movies, I personally have never heard of any of them, but they clearly have been produced and released to movie theaters. His movie has been the topic of quote "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: IMDB has not historically been considered a reliable source due to its user-edited nature. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to say? Was he not a producer for all of those movies? Do you wish for me to find more sources other than imdb? DARTH PANDA ^duel 22:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the IMDB entry is probably accurate; my concern is that articles require coverage by reliable third party sources to be notable, and IMDB is not a reliable third party source, so it does nothing to demonstrate the subject's notability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fully understand why this is such a big deal Sarcasticidealist? There are multiple places via GOOGLE that verify Greg and the info here. Not sure what you typed in the search bar but I recommend you retry and check the spelling. And if there are any other places you suggest we could find info via a 3rd party that isn't edited by a man, I will gladly go add it to the page. I want to make this right so this page does not get deleted. Thank you for any input you may have on this. I added external links on the bottom that might help some more. User:Digirammy ^duel —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

As per: WP:CREATIVE:

Creative professionals Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

I do not see the article meeting any of the criteria listed, nor have I found any reliable third party sources. Google has not returned any reliable sources that meet WP:PEOPLE's basic criteria. ThePointblank (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article for a person of marginal notability. RMHED (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO. <Dloh cierekim 20:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

change to keep per MichaelQSchmidt below Dloh cierekim 21:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you would take this guy off of Wikipedia....I've seen several of the movies and have heard of him as a producer of films in LA. He almost bought one of my friends treatments and turned it into a movie. I also know he has been involved in George Clooney's and Eric Robert's careers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.27.51 (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC) — 71.105.27.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
weak keep Outrageously puffy article,but if he has produced the films he says he has, he would quite possibly qualify for an article. . IMdB is reasonably reliable for things like that, but it does not seem to be cited. DGG (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i trimmed out the puffyiness to get it back to the verifiable facts. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Definite Keep. With respects to the nom, remember the suggested alternatives to deletion? If cursory search shows the likelyhood of improvement, the article should be so tagged. Deletion is a last resort. Google news has his name is several articles as well.... WP:ATD Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to which of these "shows the likelihood of improvement"? I don't see a reliable source on the first page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?? The google news search as above, brings 134 articles for "Greg H. Sims, producer"... And the very first page shares FOX, ABC, and the San Francisco Chronicle 2007 articles in its first 3 links dealing with Sims and the Spector trial. Then a 1990 Los Angeles Times review of Sims' film "Red Surf". Then a 1997 Variety article. Then a 1987 Washington Post article. Then a Los Angeles Times article from 1998. Then a Los Angeles Daily News article from 1998. Then a USA Today from 2007. Then a Washington Post article from 1987. Then a Los Angeles Times article from 1988. That's just the fist page. Of course, if you do not think these sources are reliable... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And its possible that User:Darrenhusted might even be able to return a rewritten version of some of the assertions of notability he removed, by using these sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have all the information from the original page before there were any of these edits made to make it "better". If you would like User:MichaelQSchmidt I can repost it all and you can make appropriate changes from there since User:Darrenhusted seemed to remove multiple other legitimate facts about this person that had multiple sources proving their legitimacy. ^DIGIRAMMY

Sure, those sources demonstrate that he's produced those films (and that he's testified in Spector's murder trial). But even when sorted by relevance, the first articles about his activities as a producer are just listing movies' credits. There's nothing in there that provides anything remotely resembling biographical information, and there's not a single article that I've found that has him as its subject. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A producer and writer of many films and per sources provided by MichaelQSchmidt above, seems to pass WP:BIO. --Oakshade (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - MichaelQSchmidt just added five references to the article. Of these, three do not mention Sims at all and the other two are subscriber only, so they may or may not mention him. The sources are find to support material about the movie (which may well belong in the Sims article, if it is kept), but do nothing to demonstrate Sims' notability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- CLARIFICATION: The assertion of notability in the article is that Greg H. Sims is a writer/producer for low-budget independent horror films, and that one of his first films was the critically acclaimed Return to Horror High. The sources as added, reflect that either 1) he was the one who wrote the film, or 2) the film he wrote was CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED - Los Angeles Times 1: "...doesn't reach all its tongue-and-fang-in-cheek goals. It always seems better written than directed...", Washinton Post (in first paragraph and NOT having to buy a subscription: "... a low-budget horror movie that, contrary to advertising, is not another slasher picture but a spoof of one. Now and then it's quite funny...". BloodAndSleeze: "This clever little effort isn't necessarily a spoof of slasher films contrary to popular belief, but rather, it's a lampooning of the low budget filmmaking process in gener", EatMyBrains: "...what makes it a memorable contribution to what at the time was becoming a fairly stagnant genre...", I-Mockery: "this movie is supposedly a satire of a real horror movie, but it comes off as something quite different"... all showing the the work of this writer is accalimed and THAT acclaim is his. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing all content, even if the sources don't mention the article topic, is always encouraged and those sources validating content have nothing to do with determining the notability of someone. As far as "subscription only" sources or others that aren't immediately available to everyone, print and other reliable sources are always acceptable sources. Just because there is no hyperlink to a source doesn't mean we assume bad faith of the content providing editor and those sources magically unreliable or don't exist.--Oakshade (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with the above; I wasn't intending to suggest that the references were inappropriate, just that they do nothing to demonstrate the article subject's notability. Apologies if I was unclear. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my clarification above. If a writer's works are acclaimed, that notability is the writer's. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I have re-written the darn thing to remove the unsourced fluff and peacock. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I like this so much better now. Vote changed from Weak Keep to Keep. DARTH PANDA ^duel 02:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My own keep is now upped from "weak". Once I removed the peacock and fluff, and corrected the assertion of notablity, sourcing was quite easy. In light of no acceptance or acknowledgement of WP:ATD, the nomination seems more like WP:UGH. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 7 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. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Feckins

Not notable. 45 hits on Google when searching for St. Feckins Gaelic Athletic Association club Bib (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in any reliable secondary sources. ThePointblank (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC) KEEEEEEEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.183.151 (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana 3 (soundtrack)

PROD was deleted. Crystal ball speculation about a probable future album. All details are rumors, speculation or attributed with no documentation. Lots of Google hits, all from gossip sites. No reliable sources found that give any details about this. NrDg 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: album not listed at http://disneymusic.disney.go.com/index.html, label's list of future albums.--NrDg 16:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons so succintly put abovePaul75 (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohmigee, it's HAMMERTIME!. DARTH PANDA ^duel 13:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - future album without confirmed tracklisting, or any other details. Far too much speculation --T-rex 16:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The album cover image used was not obtained from the label as indicated in its fair use rationale. Looks similar to cover deleted from commons that was determined to be a fan created fake.--NrDg 20:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another fake album.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
don't Delete* The magority of the songs on the album have already been leaked online and it has been comfirmed that there will be a third season soundtrack for the show as Miley Cyrus has been seen going into studios multiple times to record the songs as well as the fact that she performed a concert taping for the music videos for the songs. The songs are online and clearly exist, as well as the fact that a third Season soundtrack is definatly on the way and all the listed songs ARE REAL so therefor the article should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.239.136 (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a key aspect of a very important franchise. As the above comment explains, many of these songs have been leaked and they are known to be songs from the show's third season. While some of the article may be speculation, that can be trimmed. Everyking (talk) 23:54, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emilie united methodist church

This Non-notable stub has been tagged as lacking notability since April 2008 without improvement. The only source is the church's own website. Evb-wiki (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plainly nonnotable: if this were, say, a property on the National Register of Historic Places, it would be notable; but average churches are never notable. Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plainly notable, at least in the usual jargon. Substantial press coverage, Google news is a good place to start and so forth. WilyD 14:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To the contrary: nearly all the articles linked on that page are obituaries or tangential stuff, with the remainder being local feature stories. None of these are really significant coverage; if local news were enough, virtually any church would be notable. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think arguing from consequences is very convincing. I'm saying read Wikipedia:Notability, then apply the same, and this is clearly "notable" in our jargon. Why should we treat this church with special consideration rather than the usual standards? WilyD 16:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not substantial coverage. None of those "news" articles is about the church; it is just mentioned, either in passing or to identify where some event is occurring. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's possible that it could qualify, depending on the size of the organization. I note that it operates a private school, and it's in a suburb of Philadelphia. Anyone have figures on the attendance? Mandsford (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No attendence figures, but with only 3 Sunday services and 1 Wednesday,[27] with only 6 staff members,[28] it doesn't appear too big. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The usual claim of notability for local church congregations is owning an interesting or historic church building. I did some looking around at the website, and apparently the original pre-Civil War church building is still being used as a chapel, but seems to be a small, white clapboard church building that may be picturesque, but probably is not distinctive enough to be notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the article currently stands there is no claim of notability --T-rex 16:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm borderline though... Wikipedia is not a church directory. But if there's some historical information (and it sounds like there might be) then it's worth it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Levittown, Pennsylvania. The latter part of its "Demographics" section would be better entitled "Religion", but needs a thorough clean up. Such merger is usually the best solution to articles on minor local facilities. If kept, please capitalise all words, sicne they are all part of a proper name. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the church - it looks a great church to attend but is - in the wiki sense- not at all notable. Springnuts (talk) 18:54, 7 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Braison cyrus

A WP:BLP1E case, no independent notability of his own, other than as a bother Miley Cyrus and a son of Billy Ray Cyrus; borderline CDS A7. No significant coverage of him that I could find. Maybe could be redirected to either Miley Cyrus or Billy Ray Cyrus. Nsk92 (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relationships do not confer notability. Maybe a redirect into a section about the family from the other two articles. ThePointblank (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB page shows him playing himself in a movie about Miley Cyrus. This does not meet WP:BIO Dloh cierekim 15:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm usually pretty strict about my interpretation of what's eligible for A7, and even I would speedy this one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:48, 5 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 withdrawn by nominator. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Elbaz

No real evidence of notability has been presented. A prod was removed by someone who stated that google books search found enough hits that it was likely that some of them were real references, but, without a French-speaking person confirming, that doesn't seem an adequate reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:ENTERTAINER … having an IMDb entry is insufficient WP:Notability … Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{02:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete I PROD'ded this, but if no references are to be forthcoming to establish notability, it should go. --Rodhull andemu 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A great deal of newscoverage of him in French newsmedia: 12 news-stories in the last 2 weeks in googlenews[29] and 259 hits in googlenews archives[30]. Even with my very limited French I can see that many of these newsstories provide nontrivial significant (or, at the very least, nontrivial) coverage of him. Certainly enough to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So add some references you consider relevant to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Someone more fluent in French than me should do that. The point is, sufficient sources obviously exist to establish notability. This means that the article can be improved and hence, per the deletion policy WP:DEL, it is to be improved, rather than deleted. The article has been listed for an AfD and I am expressing my opinion here. Nsk92 (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess that means it's not obvious that there are any relevant references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it just means that my French sucks. Here is an example[31] of a bio article about him picked from the googlenews results above. Nsk92 (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, according to the French Wikipedia article[32], he received the 1998 Jean Gabin Prize. I confirmed it at the official website of the prize[33] (they have those damned pop-ups there, so one needs to click on "Entrez" and then on "Le Prix Jean Gabin" to see a gallery with the list of the prize recepients. Then click on the right-most photograph in the second row from the bottom (that is Elbaz) and an award citation for him appears). Nsk92 (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's all Very Nice, but until any of it appears in the article under discussion here, it remains unreferenced. — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not a good argument. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. Articles should be deleted only if no sources can be found. If the article is unreferenced and there are many sources about it, then the article should definitely be kept. Cunard (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92. The state of referencing in an article is not relevant to deletion. The references Nsk92 provided here, together with the ones in the article are quite sufficient.John Z (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of reliable sourcing. I have added one ref to the article and plan to add more. Icewedge (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a filmography from the French Wikipedia and some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: are any of the blue-links real? The first one (Just Do It) refers to something else entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. The Jean Gabin Prize appears to provide sufficient notability, even though we don't have anything about it here. (I'm afraid this withdrawal will not stop the AfD, as there are 2 other delete !votes, but I think I was wrong, anyway.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:44, 3 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) 00:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Quest

AfDs for this article:

This is a nonnotable parody of a class of games. It has recieved no coverage in 3rd party sources that satisfy WP:N RogueNinja_talk 02:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I stumbled upon this article from elsewhere in Wikipedia and found it interesting and helpful. It had the candidate for deletion tag on it when I found it; it was a good thing it wasn't gone when I found it because I enjoyed the information it contained and used it to find more out about the game. I think it should stay so that others like myself may happen upon it and have access to the information it provides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.112.229 (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've been through this before; see the first AfD. ThePointblank (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above this appear to be a superfluous AFD the article has been nominated before and was kept with no-one besides the original nominator saying anything but keep, The articles does have third party sources with the article ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 14:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable per the usual standards. I see no compelling case for special consideration here, certainly the nomination fails to provide one. Wily D 14:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing seems to have changed since last time... Firebat08 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, who actually took the time to read the AFDs? The cited concern is a lack of secondary sources per Wikipedia:Notability. The first AFD (from three years ago) does not address this issue, so arguing to keep based on that is worthless. Pagra shtak 20:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I didn't read the initial AfDs. I looked over the nomination, I looked over the article, then I applied the policies. From there, it's an easy keep, with no need to bother about old AfDs (which may have followed different standards & whatnot). WilyD 21:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you didn't argue to keep based on the old AFD, my comment was not addressed to you. Although, I will point out that your keep reason is based in a guideline, not a policy. That's not to say that it's incorrect, though. Pagra shtak 16:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Err, fair enough. In practice, the difference between policies/guidelines/essays/sassy redirects is not well defined. Wily D 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources indicate notability. I will, however, note that keeping "per the previous AfD" is not exactly moot as consensus and policy/guidelines can change over the course of three years (but that's beside the point). MuZemike (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep with Cleanup There are two sources lists that seem to give credible reliability. These need to be worked into a reception section instead of just sitting there in the article -- this still many not necessary guaranty sufficient notability for this to be kept, but its impossible to make that without the expansion at this time, thus erring on side of caution with a keep for the time being. --MASEM 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some commentry from cnet.co.uk and added a request for expansion. There's enough reliable coverage to satisfy notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, no prejudice against re-nomination - This article has a few reliable third-party sources. But nobody knows what they say. We don't know that they've provided adequate information to show that this topic is WP:NOTABLE enough to be covered. Someone needs to actually find these sources, read them, and include them as part of a "Reception" section. If they can't, it might be safe to assume that they are trivial mentions. ("Download of the Day" type of coverage is often just a web link, with no real critical information.) If they are just trivial mentions, this article cannot meet our guidelines, and should be deleted. But give it one last chance, as per User:Masem. Randomran (talk) 17:25, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Meyer

Unreferenced biography of a contemporary artist, has been tagged for notability since March 2007. A google search on "Claudia Meyer" with contemporary artist returns 114 unique hits. role^player 01:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep lots of ghits, some news hits. JJL (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She is not included in SIKART, a database that includes all even vaguely notable Swiss visual artists. Also, the article is unsourced, causing her to fail WP:BIO. Sandstein 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The usual ghits of a working artist. Listings for exhibitions in local commercial galleries and one solo show at a local museum: [34]. Not notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW my inclination as nominator is also to delete. -- role^player 00:25, 8 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 speedily deleted as CSD G3 vandalism (a hoax article). The original creator was blocked for vandalism. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sher'Quan (feat...)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sher'Quan (feat...)

Album to be released in 5 years? WP:CRYSTAL Terrillja (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What's the rush? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. The article author has created several other articles about this individual that have all turned out to be fakes. "Sher'Quan Johnson" results in nine pages, including Wikipedia. So tagged. ... discospinster _talk 02:59, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Finch

Non-notable person that does not show any research, resembles a Facebook/Myspace profile and is written in an unencyclopedic, informal tone. No outstanding info in the infobox and has not made much progress since being created in 2005. Shows vanity and made-up info. The links were pulled off a blog and a car-racing website showing pornography. ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 08:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Merely appearing in Playboy is not enough. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralspeedy as written, but the problem is [35] gnews would seem to indicate she might pass WP:N, (albeit barely), even when the second Hayley Finch from Kansas is accounted for. I don't have access to the articles due to subscription required, but thought it should be brought up for discussion.Horrorshowj (talk) 07:32, 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) 00:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources prove any notability. Tosqueira (talk) 04:00, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Morga

Insufficient notability established. While his resume may include many famous films and actors, this does not automatically confer notability - otherwise we'd be swimming in thousands of stuntmen's biographies. There's nothing in this biography to suggest an exceptional career within the context of the entire field of stuntwork. We generally eschew biographies on film technicians without such context; Wikipedia is not IMDb. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE. His contributions (albeit in collaboration with large ensembles) have reputable acknowledgment with a SAG nomination and a Taurus World Stunt Awards win.[36] • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Definitely notable enough through his awards and work. ThePointblank (talk) 07:56, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Forecast

Fails WP:MUSIC; in fact, I can't find any evidence that this band actually existed. George Burdi is certainly notable, as is his band RaHoWa, but I can find no mention of Final Forecast outside of Wikipedia. The content of the article, barring the short intro, is already present in the Burdi and RaHoWa articles anyway. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. I was going to say merge, but noting stated in the article could be verified. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:35, 1 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) 00:42, 3 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paxia

It's a walkthrough for a fictional universe in the computer game AdventureQuest. It's not particularly well-written and at the bottom of the page in big capital letters is a copyright notice. Should this even be here? role^player 00:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:FICT, WP:WEB, and WP:PLOT. Is there anything more you could ask for? DARTH PANDA ^duel 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-... not to mention failing WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:N and WP:NOTGUIDE. Reyk _YO! 04:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable detail written about as a game guide --T-rex 16:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V and WP:N because there are no reliable third-party sources on this topic. Also fails WP:PLOT, because it covers only plot information without wider coverage of the reception and impact -- which is impossible to fix without reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 17:21, 5 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. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Beser

Tom_Beser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Proposed article for deletion because:

1) No references, sporadic scarce information in article. 2) Whilst he has recorded a song, it never charted. 3) Googling "Tom Beser" yields only the following 2 credible responses in english, his personal webpage (the one plugged in the article), and a short Biography about him on the Eurodance Encyclopedia website, which has in part been cut and pasted as half the stub here on wiki. That bio for him gives a different list of music groups he is managing.

It is worth noting according to the stub here he is managing Snap! ft Tubo B. As far as I am aware Turbo B is no longer affiliated with Snap!.

This article either needs to be heavily edited, which may be hard as there are not multiple sources with information on him online in english. The fact that there is little information about him online raises a new question, Is he popular enough to be mentioned as an article in english?

I would say no. --Freikorp (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Not notable to even warrant fixing the article. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:42, 1 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) 00:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Darth_Panda. ThePointblank (talk) 08:02, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stratasys

User:Asarkof put the AFD notice on the Stratasys page, but did not complete the nomination process, so I'm completing it. At Talk:Stratasys, Asarkof states "This article is an advertisement, and does not meet the criteria of a Wikipedia article. As such, it should be deleted" and "This article is blatant spam and should be deleted." -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:SPAM and WP:COMPANY are in effect. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Tagged with {{advert}} and suggested keep per Phil Bridger. DARTH PANDA ^duel 19:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is certainly a notable company - just take a look at the thousands of reliable sources available from Google News Archive[37], Scholar[38] and Books[39] searches. Also the article is not irredeemably spammy - it consists mostly of factual information. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:45, 1 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) 00:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are plentiful from a quick search and are reliable. ThePointblank (talk) 07:59, 3 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; speedy A7 Frank | talk 03:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Isaac Davis

Nonnotable businessman, seems like an autobiography (created by User:Adavis789), and seems like self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, non notable, and since it's almost certainly COI the article isn't likely to improve. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:59, 1 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) 00:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Tagged as such. DARTH PANDA ^duel 02:18, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominika Kasprzycka

I've declined a speedy on this article because this biography asserts notability but may not pass WP:BIO. According to Kasnie (talk · contribs), this article has been "deleted for not meeting notability guidelines on Polish Wikipedia." Cunard (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete came fourth in the Polish edition of Pop Idol at some point. As a tv-free, mass-media-resistant person who has got a media-friendly girlfriend, the article is not warranted, as notability is negligible in her situation. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:00, 1 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) 00:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Ouro (blah blah) 08:48, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sławomir Uniatowski

I've declined a speedy on this article because this biography asserts notability but may not pass WP:BIO. According to Kasnie (talk · contribs), this article has been "deleted for not meeting notability guidelines on Polish Wikipedia and should likewise be deleted from English Wikipedia." Cunard (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page was listed as a second deletion discussion, but the first one pointed to a different person altogether, so I've removed that reference to the other person. Raven1977 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:16, 1 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) 00:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply competing as this person has done, especially without sources, isn't enough for notability. Nyttend (talk) 15:46, 3 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 G3. Fictional country made up for the TV series Cory in the House. TerriersFan (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

वोपोनगबो

Contested PROD. Completely made up country from a user whose only contributions to Wikipedia to date have been to make up other countries on the spot. role^player 00:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. A quick google search reveals a reference to the country in some Disney channel TV show, but nothing else. I hate to use Yahoo! Answers as a references, but there's a bunch of responses if you search there as well denying the countries existence: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 01:21, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Marcato

fails WP:BIO. article does not verifiably establish that he is actually a notable radio personality. We don't simply just list someone because he works for a radio station. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability, I'm not finding any verifiable 3rd party sources where he is the subject any only a couple where he is quoted.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:18, 2 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) 00:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP of an individual of marginal notability. RMHED (talk) 17:22, 7 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. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Peterson

No reliable sources found, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entry is almost completely empty of information. Also no significant claim to notability --T-rex 16:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced and no real evidence of notability. RMHED (talk) 17:18, 7 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Arcade

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. They have generated some coverage - the hybrid article already linked, and this review from PopMatters, but I don't feel this is quite enough.--Michig (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)...but the additional sources found below are plenty, so now it's a clear Keep. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable band, with a widely published full length album --T-rex 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doesn't only having one album fail WP:MUSICBIO#5? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two albums on significant labels would indicate notability per WP:BAND, but having not released two such albums doesn't automatically mean that they fail if other criteria can be met. I don't see any of those criteria being met, however, at present.--Michig (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:MUSICBIO says "is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria". For example Boys Like Girls have only one album, but no one would dream of asking for that article to be deleted. Still I feel that the level of support they have from a well known label combined with the press coverage they have received is enough to demonstrate notability --T-rex 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one criteria does it meet? Boys Like Girls had a charted single, that's the one for them. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to repeat myself. --T-rex 00:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating what? You never said what part of the notability guideline it meets. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..."the press coverage they have received" implies that T-rex was referring to WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Michig has mentioned, there is also an article in Metro Times, one in the Sun-Sentinel, an AllMusic bio, an article in The Houstonian, plus others. There's more than enough for WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to reach for the delete button myself, when I stumbled across a biog at Allmusic and a nice little article at the the Detroit Metro Times. That makes it a keep for me. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 04:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spooky! sparkl_!sm ^hey! 04:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes wp:music, one album on a major label with sources. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: One album does not pass WP:MUSIC. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 03:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Thank you. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:39, 8 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 as A7, also recreation of article deleted previously as A7 and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Benjamin Roberts. ... discospinster _talk 02:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Benjamin Roberts

no independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Appears to be largely promotional. JNW (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7. What WP:VANITY. If this does not fail by A7, it certainly will by SPAM. Tagged. DARTH PANDA ^duel 02:21, 3 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.