Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 16

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< October 15 October 17 >

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 due to problems detailed below. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 19:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Street Gangs

edit
Atlanta Street Gangs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I saved this article, probably unwisely, from a speedy in July (it did not qualify under any of the CSD), and added cleanup templates. While there probably is something encyclopedic to be said about the history and culture of gangs in Atlanta, this article has never been it. It is simply an unreferenced, unverifiable, purported list of the names of gangs in various districts of Atlanta, with no supporting material, commentary, or discussion. There is a reference to a book published in 1927 (!?) and a book or article published in 1998, but no mention of how they relate to this "laundry list". Delete. --MCB (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Råshön wind farm

edit
Råshön wind farm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The only reliable source that I can find is the official site. Schuym1 (talk) 23:48, 16 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, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 19:12, 20 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, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, due to the sources provided; the article still needs a lot of work, but notability has been shown. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 19:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Heyward

edit
William Heyward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Has had a busy career, but does not meet Wikipedia standards Written like a resume. —G716 <T·C> 12:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see anything he has done that is notable, and there are no references that claim notability either. Arsenikk (talk) 12:27, 12 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, Mr.Z-man 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G12) by Akradecki — blatant copyright infringement. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfresco sso cas

edit
Alfresco sso cas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be an instruction manual for software. No significance or importance. Waterden (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 19:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Beebe

edit
Nancy Beebe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:53, 12 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, NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi Invaders

edit
Pepsi Invaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable ROM Hack. Fails WP:NN, and WP:NOT. Newspaper98 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, vote withdrawn. I incorrectly read the paragraph, I apologize for this mistake. Newspaper98 (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FwNES

edit
FwNES (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable emulator. Fails WP:NN, and WP:NOT. Newspaper98 (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Anthony

edit
Peter Anthony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to fall well short of WP:BIO. The press notices on his site are underwhelming. None of the actors of this name listed in IMDb qualify either. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willibrord Society

edit
Willibrord Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability for biographies societies and organizations since June 2007. Prod was removed without any reason given. Magioladitis (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The article can - and should - be improved. User:Angr has provided some print sources from Google Books that I will examine when I have the time. But definitely as notable as other Anglican organizations covered on WP (cf. Society of King Charles the Martyr, Catholic League (Anglican), Church Pastoral Aid Society). Carolynparrishfan (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wondered that, but assumed it was Magioladitis's mistake, since there's no mention of biography in the tags on the page. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume he meant "societies and organizations" since that's what he wrote in the PROD. —Angr 12:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected it. I do many typing mistakes. Please forgive me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to withdraw the nomination, if someone adds some things to the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1 by User:Orangemike. (non-admin closure) ~ mazca t|c 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bling bling effect

edit
The bling bling effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A neologism "first used 16 octobre 2008" Wikipedia is not a dictionary especially not for made up phrases Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Exactly, WP:NEOLOGISM, without references to show that it's suddenly on everyone's lips and reported in the press (like, for example, Joe the Plumber). (Well, OK, that was a reference to an actual person, but it's a new meme.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. recreation allowed once sources are available Spartaz Humbug! 20:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couples Retreat

edit
Couples Retreat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Clear failure of WP:NF - article about a film not yet in production. WP:CRYSTAL. Ros0709 (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of births, birthdays, marriages and deaths in Emmerdale

edit
List of births, birthdays, marriages and deaths in Emmerdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability, is primarily trivia type content, completely unsourced, and does not meet WP:FICTION requirements. Relevant and important births, marriages, etc should be covered in a prose section of the show's synopsis section or in the episode list. A listing of ever single one is unnecessary. (relisting of former multiple article nomination). Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of births, marriages and deaths in Brookside, which was deleted as well. Magioladitis (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Capacchione

edit
William Capacchione (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only famous (not notable) for one event. –Elliskev 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ni-Oh

edit
Ni-Oh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL WP:NOTE. Subject is a not-released game that has no mention that I can find in reliable third party sources. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Low

edit
Graham Low (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Footballer who according to Soccerbase did not make a professional appearance, and thus fails WP:ATHLETE. HornetMike (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Encounter (Canada)

edit
Camp Encounter (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability from reliable third-party sources. Flex (talk/contribs) 19:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English Way

edit
The English Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources yet, has yet to be released. Album is WP:CRYSTALHAMMER right now, so redirecting to the album is out. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is NEW information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. but unimpressed with the levity of some of the votes. please consider the feelings of the editors creating these articles Spartaz Humbug! 20:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fightstar 3rd Upcoming Album

edit
Fightstar 3rd Upcoming Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about an album with no name or released date – violates WP:CRYSTAL. Also violates WP:MUSIC “unreleased albums are in general not notable”. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Williams photographer

edit
Paul Williams photographer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article about a reporter/photographer for a local newspaper who was involved in breaking a couple of stories which briefly made the national news ("Councillor makes money on sale of house" and "Policeman wears silly costume at village fete" - they must have been slow news days). But that doesn't make it possible to write a biography of Mr Williams himself, and this is reflected in the content of the article; we learn a great deal about Joan Vincent and Colin Terry, but almost nothing about Paul Williams. Essentially the article is a coatrack. Strip away the coats and we'd be left with a two sentence stub with no hope of meeting WP:BIO. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 18:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yin-Yang-Yo!. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yang (character)

edit
Yang (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 13:36, 12 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, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 23:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yin (character)

edit
Yin (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 13:36, 12 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, ffm 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skatoony

edit
Skatoony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable show; hopeless article. Dicklyon (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 15:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although the notability guidelines are not clear on inherent notability of pages such as this, the current consensus appears to be that any show that appears on any substantial and widespread television channel is notable enough for inclusion. Until those guidelines are tightened, not sure there enough to call this non-notable. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Notability being [Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise|inherent or not]] is still an ongoing discussion. Non notable by itself and still has no references. I'd be willing to support a keep if references could be added - but I don't see many (or any, really) sources that are acceptable on google. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:02, 12 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, ffm 18:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tatarian (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Napier (porn star)

edit
Jack Napier (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Building

edit
Eagle Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Its my own article. I am not shore of this but i dont think it is notable. AlwaysOnion (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological summary of the 2008 Summer Olympics

edit
Chronological summary of the 2008 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page is completely WP:OR and WP:NOT many things. It appears that someone actually went through and found a bunch of news articles that reference events that happened at the Olympics, made a snippet of a line that summarizes what happened, put that in the article and cited it as the source. While that is useful for some measures of useful, it contains no synthesis of information or any other information that is actually encyclopedic - taking one sentence from a news article and making it into a list of events that are important enough to be "summarized" does not make it encyclopedic. Aaronw (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the very valid argument of User:AndyJones JasonDUIUC (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per past AfDs. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thought we were done with nominating these... Its a good summary of the events of the games which would be too big to include in the main 2008 Summer Olympics article. How is it OR when nominatior admits its sourced with news articles? If anyone wants to add anything else to the summary its there to be edited (thats kind of the point of Wikipedia isn't it?), no one has said that what is already included is a cut off point. Basement12 (T.C) 05:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same reason as for 2006 article - I believe this article serves a useful purpose, filling the gap between the main Olympic page, which has little coverage of sporting events and the individual event pages, which documents the competitions in minute detail. -- Tcncv (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just like the other articles, this is a useful article for reasons including those stated by Tcncv. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I personally like this article, I would like the nominator to clarify a few things before saying my meaning (that I like it is immaterial, of course). First, what's OR here? The selection? Wouldn't that make any section written in summary style OR? I don't think that holds. As for NOT, that's more important as WP:USEFUL points out that usefulness (which has been claimed by many) is a valid reason for inclusion but that it can never trump WP:NOT. So what, exactly, is this article that Wikipedia is not? If specific sections of the policy were mentioned, it would be easier to make a call as to whether this indeed fails WP:NOT. -- Jao (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it's simply a gathering of news articles about what someone though was an "interesting" fact about a certain day and then citing it. e.g

Table tennis * Singapore qualifies for the final in the women's team event, thus ensuring that the country will win its first Olympic medal, in any event, since 1960.[105]

or:

Cycling * Anne-Caroline Chausson of France and Māris Štrombergs of Latvia take the inaugural gold medals in BMX, winning the women's and men's events respectively.[277]

and:

Athletics * Liu Xiang, China's defending Olympic champion in the men's 110 m hurdles, withdraws from the competition due to an injury.[191][192]

and it goes on and on. I'm sure that there are literally thousands of "things" that can be written about any event. "Someone" just ended up picking a "good amount" (6?) of the news releases on every day, took out the lede sentence, put it in this list and moved on. A list of gold medals, ok. But this is merely a "best of" for wikinews/whatever for each day, and as such is not a good candidate for wikipedia. In fact, [7] demonstrates almost the same content. Aaronw (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiled brat

edit
AfDs for this article:
Spoiled brat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:OR, and borderline WP:NAD. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert G. Walker

edit
Albert G. Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) "A disambiguation shouldn't be made up completely of red links or have only one blue link in it, because the purpose of disambiguation is solely to refer users to other Wikipedia pages". Guest9999 (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ac acoustics

edit
Ac acoustics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Victory Parts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Artist and album seem to fail WP:MUSIC, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Workshop Foundation

edit
World Wide Workshop Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The references in this article do not establish notability of the subject:

  • World Wide Workshop(2008). http://www.worldwideworkshop.org Retrieved 1 October 2008. Subject's own web site.
  • MIT Media Lab Alumni/Former Research Staff. Subject not mentioned.
  • Situating Constructionism. Subject not mentioned.
  • Harel, I. (1991). "Children Designers: Interdisciplinary Constructions for Learning and Knowing Mathematics in a Computer-Rich School". Knopf. (Paperback Edition, Ablex Publishing, ISBN 0-893-91788-5). Subject not mentioned (according to Google Books).
  • GirlGeeks.org. "Women who inspire us, internet: Idit Harel". Subject not mentioned.
  • http://www.globaloria.org/wiki/images/TheExponentJuly182008.pdf. Globaloria project discussed in this very regional (North Central West Virginia) newspaper. Subject mentioned in passing only to identify the organization with which Idit Harel Caperton is affiliated.
  • West Virginia Department of Education (2008). A Chronicle of West Virginia's 21st Century Learning Initiative. Three paragraphs about Globaloria in a 72-page compendium. One of those paragraphs mentions the subject.
  • West Virginia Center for Professional Development. "West Virginia Center for Professional Development Partners with World Wide Workshop to Help Educators and Students Gain 21st Century Learning, Life and Technology Skills". As described, a press release, so not helpful in determining notability.
  • http://theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/503387.html?nav=5014. Another very local article that mentions the subject only in passing without any description.

My reading of these references does not give rise to any presumption of the of the Globaloria project, but (a) perhaps it is, in which case some of the information here may be better suited to an article on that topic. There already is an artilce on Idit Harel Caperton.

In addition, several paragraphs of the article are taken directly from [8].

Finally, the article appears to have been written by an intern at the subject organization, as suggested by the results of a Google search for "Ryan Letada LinkedIn" in comparison the username Rletada (talk) of the creator of and contributor of an additional 109 edits to the article. Miraculously, after I noted this fact in the talk page, a new user (User:HugoHerscher, created today) started editing this page, and has edited nothing else. What a coincidence! Bongomatic (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am HugoHerscher, new to editing on Wikipedia. I started doing some editing of places I knew about, and I have been involved in programs through the World Wide Workshop Foundation in the past so I joined in there, too. I am sorry if I caused more problems. I really believe in this organization and feel it is an important contribution. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:56, 16 October 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of geography topics (0-9)

edit
List of geography topics (0-9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page and all the related pages are a list of place names with a scattering geographical science terms. As a list of place names it will never be complete and it is an unwieldy list. I intend to edit List of geography topics as a page solely for the terms used in the science to replace this page and the ones listed below. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

List of geography topics (A) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (C) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (D) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (E) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (F) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (G) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (J) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (K) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (L) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (M) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (N) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (O) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (P) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (Q) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (R) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (S) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (T) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (U) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (V) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (W) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of geography topics (X-Y-Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Liefting (talk • contribs) 2008/10/16 02:52:55

  • Delete These "list of geography topics" has turned into "list of places and some geography terms" which is not really what topics means. The cleanup you have planned sounds very sensible. The information here is all covered by the category "Geography", so there is nothing being lost. Onward. xschm (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note This discussion has been posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. 192.42.92.28 (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete overblown list which has been abused beyond recognition. JBsupreme (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is what categories are for. Themfromspace (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree With Everyone Above Except why is the conclusion "delete"?: Surely this is an editorial issue not an AfD one. Alan Liefting should perform his cleanup, then redirect all these articles to the cleaned-up page. That's what we call a merge (or smerge). (PS: I've just noticed the ANON above making the same point, and I agree.) (PPS: I don't agree with Themfromspace's delete vote either, which is a "redundant with categogy" and is wrong per the guideline at WP:CLN). AndyJones (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Generally, you are right, but this case is different because of the way these pages are named. I think redirect is inappropriate here. Redirect is used to send a reader to the page with content when they type in a sensible title that isn't where the content happens to be. In this case it is a good idea to get rid of the articles with parentheses in the names. Nobody expects these pages to exist. Therefore, delete. xschm (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. No, I don't think that's correct, for two reasons: firstly, where material is merged or smerged the original content needs to be preserved for GFDL reasons: and it's the redirect page where that preservation happens. Secondly, your worry about whether a redirect is sensible is an overestimate of how much redirects cost: they really are verrrrry cheap. Of course redirects work at their best in the circumstances you describe. But it is always worth retaining a redirect just for those people who have worked on the article at some point and have it on their watchlist. There's really no need whatsoever to bother asking whether a redirect is a good one or not. AndyJones (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I see what you mean. A redirect certainly does no harm. I have to say that I think the GFDL issues are a little strained when we are talking about a list like this--I mean, there isn't much in the way of actual content. But deleting is probably more trouble than redirecting, so why not redirect and keep the history, such as it is. xschm (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I chose not to merge of redir is that the page titles have no use after a merge or redir. I chose not to do a cleanup and then redir since it is far easier to start from scratch rather than wading thought the 27 articles to pick out the occasional link that is of use. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but:
      • If you think the new page will be easier to create from scratch, rather than copying across info from the existing lists, while removing the ones you don't want, then surely you are wrong.
      • If you think you are more likely to produce a comprehensive list without the existing lists as a resource, then surely you are wrong.
      • Suppose you don't do it. Suppose you die tomorrow or become disenchanted with Wikipedia or decide to devote all your time to Wikiproject Clangers. Then we will be asking "Where has our Geography navigation gone?" "we deleted it because someone called Alan said he was going to do something better." "And did he?" "No, I don't think so, but we have got this sub-stub".
      • Suppose it takes you longer than you think to complete: suppose you complete the new page in two months or six months or two years. In the meantime we have to do without this part of Geography navigation.
      • Suppose your version isn't very good: in six months time we're thinking "well, it was a good idea, but it didn't really work out because <insert reason here>." We'd be unable to simply go back.
      • As I've mentioned above, the usefulness or otherwise of a redirect isn't something we need to concern ourselves with in the process of editing - it's certainly not a basis on which to make any larger decision. Redirects really are very cheap.
      • All in all, what I'm saying is: your proposal is a merge proposal. Perform it as a merge. AndyJones (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to rename the articles as List of place names! But this would create an unwieldly and incomplete list. With regards to your assertion that it should be a merge, I would agree if there was content that could be merged. As the articles stand there is very little that needs merging into a List of geography topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was almost going to start on List of geography topics before the afd process had finished but I do not want to make an assumption about the result. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glossary of BDSM. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Painslut

edit
Painslut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been around since 2005, but it has almost no information at all, and is rarely edited; I don't see it expanding in the future. This could probably be merged into BDSM. I am usually for keeping less notable articles, but I don't see how this article could be beneficial to anyone. --Parthian Scribe (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Lembah Subang

edit
SMK Lembah Subang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability (in fact, the opposite: "This school is just like any ordinary other school." Bongomatic (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JBsupreme (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GOL (Giggle Out Loud)

edit
GOL (Giggle Out Loud) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. "Urban Dictionary having it" is not a claim to notability. Ironholds (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Or, more precisely, don't delete. As ever, a discussion on merging the content can be opened on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish society after the democratic transition

edit
Spanish society after the democratic transition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While very interesting and informative, this article is derived entirely from a single source, and in many cases just pastes in passages wholesale from the source in question. As a result of this, the article represents the viewpoint of one academic paper, and as such is non-encyclopaedic. In addition, it may not merit an entire article - would suggest a new section with a paragraph summary in Spanish transition to democracy, with a link to the source paper for further reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lost Number (talk • contribs) 16:14, October 16, 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I have further expanded and updated the article. I would like to know your feelings and your opinion about better ways to improve it. Best regards from Spain, --MaeseLeon (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article should not be merged with the Spanish transition to democracy article (I started both articles: translating the "transition" article from the Spanish Wikipedia) and wikifingy the "society" article from a public domain source). The "transition" article focuses on the political history of the transition while this article focuses on the societal transition after the transition. The two topics are very distinct, and merging them for the sake of merging will only make one muddied article without any benefit. Both articles already have enough material to stand on there own, so its not like there's a stray stub that can be cleaned up. I agree that the "society" article could be improved, but that's a reason for improving it, not for deleting it or attaching it as parasite to another article. MaeseLeon has already done some good work improving the article, and work, not shuffling text around, is the proper response to dealing with an article that's not quite up to par.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonably referenced. And the topic is quite notable: changes in postFranco Spain. `'Míkka>t 07:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

edit
List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a game guide and is not a suitable location for a list of fictional vehicles that have not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia:Notability. This article's primary focus is original research. Cleanup will not result in an article that merits inclusion, and the information here is too detailed to merge into a parent article. Pagrashtak 15:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And besides, the songs list consists of real songs, while this is a list of fictional vehicles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Eisen/Alt Eisen Riese

edit
AfDs for this article:
Alt Eisen/Alt Eisen Riese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge The referenced article a important part of the gameplay. It , at last, may be merged. If we don't do so, the information will simply be lost, which is very wrong.MRFraga (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's so important, how come there are no third party sources describing it? I found only sale and some forums discussing the card or model? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Arm Slave. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARX-8 Laevatein

edit
ARX-8 Laevatein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetrical Docking

edit
Symmetrical Docking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional term does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to Arm Slave. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARX-7 Arbalest

edit
ARX-7 Arbalest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GN-002 Gundam Dynames

edit
GN-002 Gundam Dynames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) the last AfD was an allmost unanimous keep and this one seems to be headed the same way. Icewedge (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GN-001 Gundam Exia

edit
AfDs for this article:
GN-001 Gundam Exia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Main mobile suit of Gundam 00 series, notable as RX-87-2 Gundam (from original series), MSZ-006 Z Gundam (from Z Gundam), XXXG-00W0 Wing Zero Custom (from Gundam Wing) and GAT-X105 Strike Gundam (from Gundam SEED). Your re-debut in second season is iconic. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The nominator's copy-pasted rationale is wrong on all points. As was shown on the previous AfD, only 2 weeks ago, there is ample independant sourcing, notabilty is asserted at the beginning of the article, and one of the first things mentioned is an out-of-universe example of influence. Edward321 (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's a notable Gundam from Gundam 00. Important fictional vehicles are notable, such as X-Wing, and Variable Fighters. Exia is no different. ScienceApe (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep per everything in the first afd. I'm sure TNN was too busy with his disruptive copypasta nominations to actually bother to read the consensus established there. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RGM-89 Jegan

edit
RGM-89 Jegan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to List of Gundams in Gundam Wing. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam Epyon

edit
Gundam Epyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep for now. Without even vetting the !votes it is clear consensus is mixed. The prevailing argument is that he is only notable for one event, which based on policy is a valid deletion (or in this case redirect) reason. Upon first reviewing this AfD I was tempted to redirect and protect, but after thinking it over and discussing it with other admins I concluded that it would be unwise to do at this point. He is currently in the national spotlight, many people are hearing about him for the first time and they come to Wikipedia to read (and write about him). While yes, his article violates the BLP policy, there is no deadline and exception can be made. Redirecting his article now would only cause needless drama, from both experienced editors who think he should have an article and new editors who can't understand why we don't have an article on such a "notable" subject. This close is not indicative of a consensus to keep, but an interim decision that I feel will result in the least drama. In a few days or weeks after the spotlight has moved to another political talking point, this should be revisited with a new AfD. I realize this means that Wikipedia will be a news site for a short period of time but I don't see any real harm in that. BJTalk 01:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Wurzelbacher

edit
Joseph Wurzelbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:BIO standards per one event notability. Wikipedia is not the news. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A large portion of the debate dealt with Joe and his concerns. McCain referenced him probably over 2 dozen times. (correction by Chergles: 11 times, Obama referenced him 2 times)

  • KEEP. While probably a one-time event, his name will always be associated with the history of this presidential campaign. As this article evolves over the coming weeks and years with new facts, it will provide a valuable reference. Jamestown (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The election and last night's debate hinged on him. Probably millions believe his original story. Dogru144 (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In lieu of deletion, the article could be redirected here as the Joe the Plumber article was. Regardless of how many times anyone says his name, it's still stictly a one event notability issue. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Q. What's he "famous" for? A. He asked a question. Q. Why was he referenced so many times during the debate? A. He asked a question. Q. Why are there so many articles about him? A. He asked a question. Q. Why is he being interviewed? A. He asked a question.
Sorry, but this is a classic example of WP:BLP1E with a dash of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM no matter how you look at it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is famous for only one thing at some point. Lots of notable people have articles when they're only famous for one thing if that one thing gains them enough coverage (an example off the top of my head is Seung-Hui Cho). The bottom line is that notability (and thus suitability for an article) is determined by the press, not us. The press seems to quite strongly believe that this guy is worthy of coverage. The question "what has this person done to become famous" is the wrong one to ask. What has Paris Hilton done to become famous? How we judge a person's worthiness of news coverage is irrelevant. If the media is covering someone significantly with front page mentions, pictures, and stories, that individual merits a Wikipedia page. Oren0 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but you're essentially contradicting WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. ". Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least temporarily. This guy is on the front page of every news site this morning. Delete the article next week if you find it doesn't hold up its interest. The article Debra Bartoshevich faced similar debate as a the subject of McCain's noted PUMA ad "Debra" came under public scrutiny in real media. The delete/redirect of Joe the Plumber was premature. There are also a lot of comments on the talk page of the Debates you redirected it to saying that the subject deserves its own article. betsythedevine (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have redirected Joe the Plumber to this article until this AfD gets sorted out. If he's going to have an article, people should be able to find it. Oren0 (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. He is quite famous right now and is subject to a LOT of press, such as this, this, this, etc etc. Very notable. So, keep. Bstone (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. At best this should be a foot note in campaign and debate articles related to the 2008 presidential race. Numerous people have been mentioned in speeches and debates, I in fact knew someone personally who's been mentioned several times, and I'm sure they and their families would prefer their privacy instead of having people argue over them on Wikipedia about their fifteen minutes of fame. --Amwestover (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's being referred to as the "star" of the debate and so on. Definitely very notable at least right now. Also I think the article should focus on "Joe the Plumber" as used in the campaign and the media - the image - rather than just Joe Wurzelbacher,radek (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect This is yet another example where notability is not inherited. This brief attention is about Obama's response to the question and has nothing to do with anything biographical about "Joe" the questioner. McCain repeated the phrase "Joe the Plumber" as a rhetorical device, but that doesn't mean that this guy who asked the question is notable (and it turns out that his name isn't actually Joe and he isn't even a plumber, so really, how can this be about him? "Joe the Plumber" is being used as an everyman.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:1E, as it is overwhelmingly clear that this person's notoriety is only based upon a single event, and the guidelines for handling such cases are crystal-clear. Not a single one of the "keep" votes legitimately addresses this point, and thus should be disregarded in the final considerations. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If he does interviews and props his fame, he should be documented. Elizabeth Smart was "known" for one thing--being abducted and that page was created during her disappearance. This discredits any "Wikipedia not a news site" argument. Clara Peller has a page, the taco bell chihuahua has a page, Willie Horton has a page.
  • Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, especially because of press reports that Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher was fined for tax evasion, he referred in an interview to "taxation without representation", and so he may represent far more than the "average Joe" that he appeared to represent in the debates. Erxnmedia (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is quickly becoming a mini smear campaign. How soon until the article is deleted or redirected? --Amwestover (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an article about the election/campaign or similar. While the guy himself is only notable for one event, meaning he shouldn't have his own article, the information itself IS notable due to the debate itself as well as the many articles about the guy. A redirect would eliminate notable info. --Minderbinder (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what exactly? Even the redirects to the debate article? That's fairly absurd considering the prevalent of this story and Wikipedia's reputation as a go-to site for information. Moncrief (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments of BetsytheDevine Colonel Warden. Had this person been mentioned only once in passing in this event, then his notability would be debatable; however, not only was he mentioned 26 times by both participants, his persona -- a symbol of the small businessman both candidates claim to represent -- is an important factor in this debate, & a needed reference to future students to understand it. -- llywrch (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.191.190 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy edit break

edit
  • Redirect - BLP1E suggests that he'll be forgotten in a big hurry, but he's an obvious point of discussion for the debate itself, so any information can be set there and this redirected. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those who aren't aware of it should know that there is now a dedicated section of the debate article, United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2008#Joe_the_Plumber, to Joe the Plumber. The redirect can go directly to it. Moncrief (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do anything without prejudice. We have no idea whether anyone will care in a month. Reconsider it then. --B (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E states that "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. It doesn't matter that this guy has been on TV shows and in the news; it's just that the candidates happened to have mentioned him a bunch of times. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like this article to be kept but I believe it should be renamed "Joe the Plumber". This was an important part of the debate and has become an important part of the campaign. Let me remind everybody that other debate themes also have their own articles such as 1992's Giant sucking sound and 1988's Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.--William Saturn (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - We already had this debate right after the article was made. He is still only notable for one event, and should not have his own article. He may be a campaign issue, but is not notable enough in and of himself. Scapler (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the article on the debate. I see nothing to indicate that the person is notable, only that his actions with respect to the debate are. --Carnildo (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets all Wikipedia requirements for notability and BLP. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States presidential election debates, 2008. Only notable within the context of one news event. Hut 8.5 20:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This gentleman's story is a study in political and personal irony. He is also apparently not shying away from his newfound fame and seems to be destined to be a footnote to the 2008 presidential campaign who will be referenced for years to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.120.233 (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - referenced article, worldwide notability. I was looking for this article having heard about him on our (Australian) morning news and also having heard him referenced in the Presidential debate. Happy to have the debate reopened soem time in the future as to whether still notable but at this stage , as per comments by others, it is crystal balling to suggest he is not notable. This morning's news observed he was significantly goodgled [13] [14] . Rename as suggested elsewhere - it is "Jo the Plumber" who is notable - Joseph Wurzelbacher is part of the facts associated with he article. --Matilda talk 21:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)--Matilda talk 20:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – WP:BLP1E. No need to redirect his full name to the election debates, either; although that's what he's notable for, it's one single event that surely does not define the whole life of the man? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Single event notability where he is not even the main character is absurd. I suppose everyone who asks a question could be listed just as well. WP is for long term notability. Maybe we need articles on each Pokemon just in case someone wants to look them up individually? Or each Beanie Baby? Nope. He has no long-term notoriety or fame. Collect (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this person's story seems to be deepening beyond his question to Obama, and reports on the BBC and in the New York Times suggest his question to Obama might have been coordinated with the RNC or McCain campaign it remains relevant as a separate article. The Guardian observes that the income Wurzelbacher quotes seems selected to be just beyond the trigger level for Obama's middle class tax relief. CApitol3 (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These articles suggesting deeper significance behind the question, in my mind, make KEEP all the more evident as the correct course of action. --Falcorian (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New break

edit
  • Delete - This is adequately covered in the article about the election. This article will quickly become filled with stuff that has nothing at all to do with the national debate. Lots of people get interviewed on the tee-vee because they support this candidate or the other, but we don't give them their own pages for it.Demesne Lord (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename Joe the Plumber is notable, not Joseph Wurzelbacher is just another fact. There is a difference. The folk hero or agitator (depending on viewpoint) should be the focus of the article. Series of tubes is a similar article in that the term suddenly became notable when it was reported and people still remember it. Chergles (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I endorse the rename proposal - it is "Jo the Plumber" who is notable - Joseph Wurzelbacher is part of the facts associated with he article. --Matilda talk 21:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another courtesy break

edit
  • Keep As I have argued elsewhere, he has become a huge figure in the election, iconic, along the level of Ayers or Wright. Very significant at present. His argument raised profound issues in the election. It is an interesting irony that he doesn't fall near falling into the higher bracket. Dogru144 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now. We can and should wait until the political fallout is over before deciding whether there is a BLP1E issue. The main reason we get worried about BLPs, potential for harm, clearly does not apply in this case since a) he is getting international media coverage and b) he clearly enjoys the coverage and is actively participating with it. There is clearly a large amount of ongoing discussion of Wurzelbacher. The most relevant analogy may be to Debra Bartoshevich. Or as I am fond of pointing out, John Hinckley, Jr. is not BLP1E. In any event, there's nothing that says we cannot reevaluate a few weeks from now (say after this election). Prior action will be likely to be premature. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do people even try to follow WP policies anymore? This is clearly a one-event issue and not worthy of an article. Additionally, most of the article is attacking him and serves no purpose other than to marginalize McCain's argument against Obama's tax policies. Arzel (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not wikinews, but the coverage is sufficiently massive for this to be on Wikipedia. --Ezeu (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the campaign article. This week's news is next weeks fish and chips wrapping. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is established by number of third party reliable sources. Historical nature of presidential debates nullifies any WP:RECENT argument. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly notable, pivotal talking point of third presidential debate. Briancollins (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. McCain's use of him in the debate, and the ensuing controversy has made him notable. 23:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dems on the move (talk • contribs)

on the move|talk]] • contribs)

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

The result was no consensus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Gundam

edit
Wing Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Redirect a robot to user sounds like redirect Magnum 44 to Dirty Harry. I prefer redirect to Wing Zero Gundam (oddly not nominated to deletion) or a list of mobile units of this series. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Which government issued a postage stamp on a piece of machinery in an anime series? I see no reference to such a thing in the article. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually in the "Appearances outside Gundam Wing" section, but they apply to the series as a whole rather than the single characters or machines. To keep ten articles just based upon that would be rather pointless. TTN (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm only using that as a rationale to !vote keep on one article, not ten, so please do not put words in my mouth. Second, saying the postage stamp proves notability of the series as a whole, but not to individual characters or machines is like saying a postage stamp with a picture of James T Kirk and the Starship Enterprise showed that Star Trek was notable, but not that Kirk or the Enterprise were. Edward321 (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it establishes notability for one, it obviously establishes notability for the other nine in your eyes. Star Trek stamps would not establish notability for the independent elements. The different elements of the series establish notability by using other sources to show that they're notable outside of it. The stamps would only add to that already established notability. TTN (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indiscriminate fancruft (see also http://gundam.wikia.com/) Unless some reliable, secondary source on each suit can be dug up somewhere, all the After Colony mobile suit articles ought to be either merged into one article and/or moved off-site and then deleted here. Standalone articles on each fictional "suit" in the series is -- for wikipedia purposes -- in-universe overkill, and ought to be off-loaded to the Gundam Wikia.
    Also, hardly any of these articles use any sources outside the After Colony mobile suit universe. For instance, of the 11 sources cited in the article presently under AfD discussion, 9 citations are all references to the primary source itself (Gundam Wing anime, episode N). The remaining two sources (the only non-primary-source ones) are non-specific, and applicable to the series as a whole. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom plainly did not examine article closely. User:Fullstop's perjorative !vote should also be struck. Jtrainor (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Gallop

edit
Tom Gallop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable actor, article is sourced only is IMDB. Not a film expert, so I didn't speedy tag it. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gensaku-sha

edit
Gensaku-sha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Topic only suitable for a dictionary. Article nothing more than a short dictionary entry. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Boldly redirected to I Set My Friends On Fire now that they have an article. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cant spell slaughter without laughter

edit
You cant spell slaughter without laughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Album article on album by non-notable band. Write the band page first. tomasz. 15:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mile End Group

edit
Mile End Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural. This has been speedied a few times and recreated. Although the refs at first glance look substantial they are mostly one web-site. No real opinion on keep/delete but just about asserts some importance to keep it out of speedy land. Best to have a debate. Pedro :  Chat  14:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwood (rapper)

edit
Eastwood (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable rapper with little, if any, significant media coverage. Has been signed to some notable labels (unreferenced) but never released an album of his own—only mixtapes. May have appeared on tracks by notable artists but not any notable tracks. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of characters in Heroes. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin "Knox" Washington

edit
Benjamin "Knox" Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor characters from Heroes that lacks notability, and may be better served in List of characters in Heroes, and is already listed in List of Heroes characters with special abilities. Earlier Prod was contested. — Edokter • Talk • 14:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame, because I'm certain that Knox will be a major character by the end of this series - I think he's appeared in every episode so far - but unfortunately, he's not yet notable. --WORM | MЯOW 17:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's redirect it in case he becomes notable later. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Heroes presents, via the novels and the episodes, one or two new characters per week. I am not sure about the actor's contract. If we have any sign that we can gain notability we have convert to a redirect to list of heroes with special abilities. Creation of articles for characters who just appeared in a show is WP:RECENTISM. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I'm pretty new to the whole process of creating articles, so I'm certain I don't understand every wikipedia editing guideline and regulation, but I think this article is worthwile, or at least will be, so, if it is deleted, I'm ok with that, but I will keep the article if it is appropriate to write in the future. Sylar07 00:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylar07 (talk • contribs)
You can create a subpage in your userspace and make any improvements there. IF you have a good version you can present it to the Wikiproject Heroes. Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cotswolds Connect

edit
Cotswolds Connect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A novel website idea, but not yet notable enough for inclusion on our project. Our notability policy states that, as a rule, a topic should have received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". At present, there are not very many mentions in news media, and I am concerned that the page may have been made by someone connected with the website in some way. Finally, a stated growth rate of 30% is unsustainable, and suggests that the project does not yet have very many members. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's been speedied twice, but I think the owner keeps recreating it because he thinks it meets WP:N. I'm hoping that coming to this page will show him that we're not being malicious, but that his website simply isn't big enough to warrant inclusion yet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It was speedy deleted because it didn't assert importance. It now does assert the importance, so it is no longer a candidate for deletion on those grounds. So the fact that it's already been deleted twice shouldn't push us towards a Delete decision here - the problem it had before is now resolved. I think assertion of importance is different to notability - being unique to the Cotswolds is enough for an assertion of importance I would say, but notability is instead about 3rd party reliable sources. Mdwh (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It has 3rd party sources, but these seem to me to fall under a brief news coverage, that do not show long term significance yet. Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS says Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.; Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_objective_evidence says it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. It's unclear whether there's going to be much verifiable content that could be added for an article - I think a mention in Cotswolds would be sufficient. Note that this vote should not be taken as implying that future articles should be speedy deleted - there may be a justification for an article in future if there is increased, long-term coverage in 3rd party sources. Mdwh (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SpeedyDelete as per WP:N WP:SPAM - DustyRain (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --B (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday X - The Unknown

edit
Doomsday X - The Unknown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film. Fails WP:N --Ged UK (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Appleton

edit
Albert Appleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about non-notable writer DAJF (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

The School Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ms. Eagle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Graphics

edit
Aspen Graphics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The author and main editor of the article appears to have a WP:COI. Please see this LinkedIn page. There are no reviews or third-party references to the subject software, nor is there any assertion of notability.

Submitting through AfD instead of speedy so (a) if it is in fact notable, it has a chance; but (b) if it isn't, it won't be recreated as much spam is. Bongomatic (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Probably should have been sent to speedy... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Replicas

edit
Super Replicas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This spam article fails to assert notability and the main editor acknowledges a WP:COI in his talk page. Despite repeated explanations as to the WP:N policy, the editor hasn't provided any suggestion of notability.

The first half dozen pages of a Google search for "super replicas" generate no obvious evidence of notability. Bongomatic (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, mostly because this seems to be spam about a particular company with no demonstration of notability. There is room for an article about this particular "industry" (i.e., the authorized replication of classic automobiles). For those of us who can't afford a Lamborghini, but who want others to think that we can afford a Lamborghini, there are some businesses that specialize in this. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Emanual Poulos

edit
Stephen Emanual Poulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An IT worker who liked singing opera, trolled a forum and died in 9-11. No edits since July 2005 (not a reason for deletion, but indicates low interest), no verifiable sources (a memorial wiki and an NY Times forum post inaccessible to anyone without an account). In my view does not meet notability criteria. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the above statement: had he not died in the 9/11 attack, he would never have gotten that NYT article, which is from October 2001. I hope I don't sound too callous saying this, but he is a sort of Joe the plumber for 9/11. VG ☎ 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a bad analogy, in that Joe the Plumber was just kept at AFD... but I take the point, which is that WP:BLP1E applies here as well (people notable for one event). Terraxos (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. In late 2001, the proliferation of articles about 9/11 victims is what led to the 'not a place for memorials' policy in the first place; this one seems to have slipped through the net, but is exactly what that policy is meant to prevent. Terraxos (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yorktown Central School District. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred E Strang Middle School

edit
Mildred E Strang Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Middle schools are not inherently notable, unlike High Schools. Nothing in the articles suggests notability, and a quick internet trawl suggests that none will be forthcoming. Ged UK (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. merging requires the informattion to be verified and sourced. This is neither so by measuring consensus against policy delete is the only outcome Spartaz Humbug! 05:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GemRB

edit
GemRB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not explain how this software is notable (WP:N), or provide any independent references (WP:V). Was up for PROD last December with notability concerns - removed anonymously but without addressing this issue. Marasmusine (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed that this does not even assert notability. No 3rd party reliable sources (or any 3rd party sources), so this fails verifiability. Article has been tagged for a while, with no sign of improvement. I also note that there's nothing here that isn't or couldn't be on the software's own webpage, and that's unlikely to change unless the software starts getting mentioned in 3rd party sources. Mdwh (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Infinity Engine, which covers the engine GemRB is reimplementing as free software.-- Roc VallèsTalk|Hist - 13:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Infinity Engine, a sourceforge project of dubious status and no independent sources I can find. Nifboy (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you have not found any independent sources, then you have not even tried. There are news to every version on the usual suspects like LinuxGames or The Linux Game Tome. It has been included in LinuxLinks.com's article 42 of the Best Free Linux Games and has an article on the Linux Gamer Guide. It has been written about in the c't, "the computer magazine with the most subscribers in Europe" in issue 15/2008 and all this before it even reached playable beta status! There is a good reason why. No other game engine recreation can match in complexity and low age of supported games. That alone is noteworthy. Now look on the article of the similar project ScummVM, there is not a single independent source either but do you question its notability? GemRB is very close to beta, all it misses is the level-up feature, then the popularity and press coverage will rise. Do you really want to delete an article that is already available in five languages (notability again?) just to add it back later? -- Darklock (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's check these sources out in order. LinuxGames is merely reposting the change log, nothing there. Linux Game Tome, same deal. All LinuxLinks says about GemRB is literally "Clone of BioWare's Infinity Engine". Linux Gamer Guide is a Wiki, not an RS. So the first four sources you've given me really aren't sources, and that's not even considering their reliability; not useful for writing an article. Unfortunately I can't get at the German article, but I notice WeiDU and "Widescreen-Mod" amongst the keywords, so based on that I don't think this two-page article is anything more than a very brief overview of engine mods. That's hardly the "significant coverage" we need in order to write a decent article. Nifboy (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and to answer your questions, yes and yes. If I had a dime for every SourceForge project to come through AfD and declare "Oh, we'll have sources when we get into/out of beta!" I... Well, I wouldn't be rich, but I'd at least have enough change to do a load of laundry. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did try, though the burden is not upon us to prove verifiability, the burden is upon those adding material to Wikipedia. I agree though that [19] would count as a 3rd party reference, although it says nothing beyond it being a "Clone of BioWare's Infinity Engine". Note that it's not clear that news links count, as these seem to be just release announcements that can be submitted by anyone. It's also not a question of how good a product is (the only concern is how notable it is) and claims like "No other game engine recreation can match" would definitely need to be sourced, nor should we be predicting whether there might be more sources in future. The issue of other articles isn't relevant here either - if you think that another article doesn't have sufficient verifiability or notability, then feel free to raise that issue for that article. Also note that if the article is redirected/merged, then the content wouldn't be lost anyway, so that could trivially be undone if and when there is greater coverage in future. Mdwh (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I know that this has been afd'd multiple times,but the subject really shouldn't belong in an encyclopedia. As several other editors have suggested,should there such lists for other words? Like "shit"? We could just make a list for all of them. Seriously,this article has got to go. Fireaxe888 (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck yes! per nom. — Werdna • talk 08:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fuck no! Unlike most lists, this isn't an indiscriminate collection of crufty information. The material is well cited and notability is not an issue considering the nature of the word. Profanity in film is a notable topic [20] and this list documents the rise in profanity in recent films. Themfromspace (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there's no real reason for deletion given by the nom. "the subject really shouldn't belong in an encyclopedia." - Why not? What WP policies does it violate? "As several other editors have suggested,should there such lists for other words?" - Which editors? When did they say this? Can you link to these alledged discussions? "Seriously,this article has got to go." - WHY has it got to go? Lugnuts (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lugnuts makes a good point, it seems as if were nominated more in personal preference than for actually failing a WP policy. Themfromspace also presents a good point with "Profanity in film is a notable topic". It has become a unique word, in that, there is no other word used like it used in films. The point was made about other words, but to my knowledge, no other word is used anywhere near as often as "fuck". Can the list be improved? Absolutely, but it should stay and be allowed that oppurtunity. Blackngold29 12:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong Keep This is getting ridiculous, if it survived seven nominations, do you really think it has a better chance of being deleted now? At this rate, this article could be able to break this article's record in being the most nominated article on Wikipedia. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Even if one argues that the word "fuck" is notable, that does not automatically transfer notability to any medium where the word was used. I see this article as fancruft and I don't see notability in it. I also question the reliability of the sources used to obtain an exact number of profane words since many of them seem to give estimates yet the article claims specific figures. For example, the preview online source for Menace II Society cites that the word was obscenities were used in "roughly 317 occurrences" and the "f-word" was cited as being used 228 times. If our only source specifically uses the word "roughly", we should not be presenting an exact number because one was never specified. By the way, even though the above source extimates 317 228, the Wikipedia article lists it as 300. Where was this number derived from? I think that this article is based on estimates from questionable sources and lacks clear notability. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I can understand the nominator's feelings, the opinion that "this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia" isn't a reason for deletion. One of the Little Red Book sayings is "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia", and clicking on a random article will confirm that. As for this article, it has survived one nomination after another because it wasn't created to "shock" people. The encyclopedic value of such an article is that it's a measure of attitudes about censorship. The word didn't appear at all in film prior to 1968 or so (there was a film called "What ever happened to old what's his name" or something like that); for many years, use of the f-word was the difference between an "R" rating and a "PG"; even with the change in attitudes about censorship, use of the word depends on what audience you're aiming for. While I suppose that my personal preference would be that the article be called "List of films that most frequently use the word 'f***'", I think it serves its purpose just fine as is. Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment About that "several editors have noted" thing,here's a link.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" see one of the "delete" comments. "I suppose we can wait for the rest of this series of articles with names like List of films that most frequently use the word "shag", List of films that most frequently use the word "the", List of films that most frequently use the word "sex" or List of films that most frequently use the word "Britney". Vegaswikian (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)" There's your proof. Ok,to put some policies up.I believe this article is a clear violation or WP:N and WP:INDISCRIMINATE --Fireaxe888 (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and suggest speedy close; after nine tries it just looks more and more like disruption. Only subjective reasons have been given for this ninth attempt to delete this page. The criterion for inclusion is reasonably clear. And the page is a worthwhile resource for the fastidious. While there probably are not many people who would go see a film just because the script uses "fuck" often, there are a fair number of people who would prefer to avoid some films for just that reason. This list tells them which films do. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the title of the AFD says 8 but by my count this is the eleventh fucking time this has been discussed. The last time was only in March. Are we to be subjected to an AFD every six months? Keep and I second the speedy close. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without a question this article satisfies all the needs to stay on wikipedia. When an article called fuck can stay on wiki then why not this. This is no exception and it also provides pretty good list of all the movies and moreover notability should not be a concern as any ordinary person would use it more commonly as greeting a person. Kalivd (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL--Termer (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No F*cking Way! - After 7 previous AFD's failing on this list, i would have thought people had got the message by now. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nom argues that this list is indiscriminate because the 4-letter word in question is not notable, but this is clearly not the case. 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think that personal preference should have little or no effect on the notability of a subject. Just because you don't like a word, that does not make it any less notable. This article should clearly stay.--Mjr162006 (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuck this AfD!! — (sorry, had to say it; I mean keep) needs cleanup and proper sourcing which is apparently out there, but no deletion necessary. Nom is also not convincing of deletion. MuZemike (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reluctant Keep: As much as I think it should be deleted because I think it's a ridiculous subject (what's next, "Movies That Contain The Word: The"?), but having survived this many other AFDs, any more nominations are surely for disruptive reasons. The People (and Cabal, and just about anyone else by this time) have spoken, and the result should be Keep! NDCompuGeek (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE for fuck's sake. It's an indiscriminate list which relies upon unreliable sources, such as IMDb. I'm disappointed that the majority of !keep votes here amount to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. JBsupreme (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article uses multiple sources for the word counts, but IMDB is explicitly marked as not being one of them. Most of the sources are parental control sites, so why would they be inaccurate? VG ☎ 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this external article given as a source for the word count in the film Menace II Society uses the word "roughly" when counting obscene words which would imply a count that may or may not be accurate as well as that it presents 228 as the number of occurances of the word "fuck" but the Wikipedia article lists that number as 300. That's what makes for an inaccurate count in an article whose primary purpose is counting things. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like some editor misread the reference, since it attributes roughly 317 "atrocious obscene language" occurrences, of which only 218 were the f-word. That kind of problem can be solved by editing; I don't see why the article has to be deleted because someone copied the wrong number. That still doesn't answer why you think the reference is inaccurate. Even the use of a rough count doesn't seem to be a serious problem. Would it affect the article a lot if there were only 215 f-word uses? VG ☎ 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is an article whose primary purpose is to list specific numbers and to sort a list of films based on those numbers. Yet the references being used to source those numbers and, in turn, sort the list do not contain exact numbers, they contain estimates. Even if each entry in the Wikipedia article now specifically says "estimated X number of times the word was used", I'm still not satisfied that the method used to count those words is correct. What is the method? Is it actually someone's job to watch films and tally swear words or do we have a sophisticated computer program to count the word "fuck"? Sarcasm aside, I believe those sources are not reliable sources because I don't see what kind of accuracy related scrutiny they are being subjected to. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiterating for the last time: I don't see the rough count as a major problem here. The title is "List of films that most frequently use the word", not "Exact number of times these films used the word", or even "Ranking of films by the number of times..."VG ☎ 10:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I'm wrong but these films are actually sorted by a so called "Fuck count" (ie, "Exact number of times these films used the word") in the table as well as the graph below the table. To me, that clearly says that this article contains a "ranking of films by the number of times..." regardless of article's title. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete arbitrary list, why not a article about movies and the word "bitch" or "toad" (random). Suffers the same problem that article about busty porn stars had, who decides the criteria? Why is 100 used as the minimum. A 70 minute movie with 80 uses of the word would be frequent, but a 150 minute movie (2 1/2 hours) with 100 fucks would not be a lot. TJ Spyke 18:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I stated above, there is no other word that is used as much as "fuck". If you can prove me wrong and creating a list of 50 movies that include the word "bitch" (or any other word for that matter) that is cited and extensive, I'll vote to keep it, but I don't see it happening. You do have a point with the fpm, but that can be adressed and included in the article, I don't see it as grounds for deletion. Blackngold29 18:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you saying that "fuck" is the most used word in films? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there were another list, such as one that documented the use of another four letter English word, it would be equally as trivial and have the exact same sourcing problems as this one. I can guarantee that. JBsupreme (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see no "sourcing problems" there appear to be multiple sites which count this and are not IMDB. I doubt you could find many sources with a "shit counter". And to SWik: If there is another one that you can cite then go for it; but "List of films that most frequently use the word "the"" sounds boring. Blackngold29 18:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Boring or not, I don't think that anyone here has proof that "fuck" is the most commonly used word in films. I think that's pure speculation. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • @ SWik78: No offense, but I think you know full well exactly what was meant by the word being most common. Anyone can tell you it is not the most common four letter word of all. That is obvious. It is however the most common of the American four-letter swear words. That intention was very obvious and hard to miss.Mjr162006 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • With all due respect, the intention was missed and I do not at all appreciate the underlying insinuation of my failure to assume good faith. I did not know full well that that's what was meant from previous comments even though it might make sense now. Call it obvious, call it hard to miss but speak for yourself when you say that and please refrain from accusing me of misdoings when I've done my best to do so towards others. Thank you! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just wanna congratulate this article for surviving seven nominations already. At this rate, it will get to nomination 18 in no time at all. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, completely arbitrary and indiscriminate list which, as SWik78 has pointed out, relies on sources which are too loose for that of an encyclopedia and thus fail our reliable sources guideline. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the article defines a finite list and populates it with sourced information, even if there are some gray areas in the sources. The intro also makes the case for the subject being encyclopedic. (And finally, let me just say this gratuitously: Belgium!) —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. How many times must an article undergo a WP:SNOW keep? This is starting to remind me of the infamous recurring GNAA AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shit, no! -- Delete Another indiscriminate, cobbled together list that appears to have some holes in it (for starters, where are the Richard Pryor concert films?). Ecoleetage (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of IDONTLIKEIT concerns (and, frankly, I don't like it), this article is definitely an example of selecting random bits (similar to a "List of bald Iowa Governors" would be) and putting them together, which is inconsistent with the guidelines etc. for lists. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have nothing against the word itself,but the actual article is just a list of movies notable because of how many times they use the word "fuck".This isn't WP:NOTCENSORED,it's a just a reasonable nom to delete a not-so-reasonable article.--Fireaxe888 (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep while I throw snowballs at about half the !voters. McWomble (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of these arguments I also used at previous AfDs, but I guess I am allowed to do that like other people are allowed to nominate this article again for AfD. Also, I acknowledge that I am biased, as I've edited the article a lot, and yes its amusing (and there is nothing wrong with that). But more importantly:
    • The word fuck is different from random other words (including other swearing and sexual slang), given the controversy that surrounds it. Excessive usage of the word fuck in specific movies is often mentioned in reviews/reports, showing the notability of the subject. For example, there is a movie dedicated to the usage of the word fuck, as well as many scientific articles.
    • A clearly defined cut-off (100 in this case) narrows the scope of the article, making it easier to maintain and sets it apart from what are often called "indiscriminate lists". As also mentioned before, many lists naming the top XXXX of something on Wikipedia use an arbitrary cut-off. This is not original research, but only a way to keep the maintenance and size of such articles under control, something that is done all over Wikipedia, see for a few examples these featured lists: List of tallest buildings in Baltimore, List of longest suspension bridge spans, List of wealthiest charitable foundations, etc...
    • The main argument in several previous AfDs was sourcing. It is properly sourced now for a long time, making all information verifiable. Some of the numbers might be estimates, but that fact could easily be added to the introduction of the list.
    • Articles likes this are exactly what makes Wikipedia different from other encyclopedias.
    • We have lists like this, with similar sourcing, all over Wikipedia. I am not gonna give overwhelming evidence, just one totally random example that I could think of. See the article List of largest suspension bridges, with the bridge at position 17 in the list. This: [21] is the supplied reference. Not exactly a reference that discusses how this bridge is well known for its length. It just shows some details and, indeed, the length of the bridge. Is that article ever nominated for deletion? Not once. In fact, it is a Featured list.
    • So in summary, the article does NOT violate WP:A, WP:OR, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:LIST, WP:CLS or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Therefore, I do not see any grounds for deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per the old WP:GNAA I propose a new policy: Wikipedia:Kick the ass of anyone who renominates List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" for deletion before 2010. McWomble (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we also have the article List of AfDs that most frequently use the word "fuck" too?! Lugnuts (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and nominate article as one that has been the most times sent to AfD without being deleted and salted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Disruptive repeat nomination per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this is not a credible list. First of all, the word itself and its usage in film is notable, as reflected by the film Fuck. However, many items in this list are not relevant to the topic. If you notice the sourcing, these are mainly resources for families to gauge the appropriateness of a film before seeing it. It's hard to share my tacit knowledge with everyone, but the majority of these entries are not highlighted for the number of f-words used. I think that a more credible list would be List of films known for excessive profanity or having that list under Profanity in film because the reality is, some films known for profanity are not going to be the highest-ranked. Let's look at an example... Scarface, to my recollection, is pretty famous for its profanity, yet a film like Alpha Dog is ranked highly though I doubt the latter has been as recognized as the former for its profanity. The same goes for other kinds of comparisons. I honestly think that we need a Wikipedia article with an actual discourse on profanity in film and highlighting the films most recognized for their profanity. The usage of family resources' counters really skews the importance of these entries by ranking them in this arbitrary fashion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Believe me, I understand your argument and even partially agree with you. But, out of curiosity, do you think the now featured List of largest suspension bridges should be changed to a List of suspension bridges known for their length, which would include extensive trimming of the list and removal of most of the information? That list is also built from sources that do not discuss the length of the bridges, but just list it, see [22] for example. The point is, we have things like this all over Wikipedia. If many people do not agree with that, shouldn't there be a more broad discussion about it, rather than deleting random articles? --Reinoutr (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that List of largest suspension bridges is an example of a list that does work. Each list uses different criteria, and I think that when it comes to infrastructure, there are specific details that have always been important to humanity. We've always tried to span across enormous gaps and tried to build the tallest structures. When it comes to the f-word, though, I am not as convinced that the word count is an important accomplishment. Excessive usage is something to be discussed, certainly, but the list as it stands fails to adjust for the various contexts, such as subject or length. A stand-up comedy is going to have its share of f-words, and the number can also fluctuate with the length of films. I mean, your example even specifies "suspension bridges", and there are obviously different bridge categories because of their inherently different structures. Not to mention the objective measurement of the criteria -- I think it is safe to say that length will be a much more steady criteria than a word used in mediums for artistic merit. Seeing this AFD go around the block again and again, I just think that it would be ultimately useful to encompass a list of films known for their excessive profanity in the context of resources like what you identified. A topic like the list of bridges is clearly acceptable, yet this one seems like it needs to be reevaluated to put it in the best context, like I suggested, a sub-topic of a more detailed and encyclopedic topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I not neccesarily disagree, you did switch argument here. Above you argued to include only movies notable for their profanity and now your argument is that "fuck" is less defined than "length". And to your argument that the other list even specifies "suspension bridges", I would say that this one even specifies "fuck" (as opposed to other word/bridges). Personally, I would read your argument as a whole more as a cleanup argument rather then a delete. --Reinoutr (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to clarify my stance. I think you made a good point about the lists of bridges, which is why I may have shifted my argument. I think that the application of the criteria matters... looking at something like Fuck, it is very meta, just writing in the dialog to set a record. In that regard, it's "easy" to pull off something like that for this list. The same can't be said for bridges, if you understand what I mean by the strength of the measurement. I am not a fan of this article as the topic is named and written. Maybe another article (Profanity in film) could be written using elements like the studies you mentioned, but I think that citing the family-friendly resources to compile such a list is a bit forced. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too would welcome a Profanity in film article and would consider the option of merging some info from this list into that (undoubtely more encyclopedic) article later. But, I would like such an article to be created first, rather than first deleting this one. By the way, the list orginally had a column which correct for the length of the movie (FPM, fucks per minute), but this was removed after several people argued that was orignal research. Although I disagree with that notion (simple division of two sourced numbers should not, anywhere on Wikipedia, be considered original research), I removed the column to deal with their complaints. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no third-party sources to demonstrate that the subject has been discussed in serious fashion outside Wikipedia. Moreover, the list is indiscriminate, sets up a slippery slope and consists of an OR synthesis. Biruitorul Talk 00:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-sourced, single-criteria discriminate list. I don't see any reason to delete it; there's really nothing new to add to this. Celarnor Talk to me 03:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- As long as the list is sourced (and there's no question to my mind that its notable), then there's absolutely zero (real) reason to delete other. If you don't like it, don't click. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An indiscriminate list. Schuym1 (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason to alter past consensus on this. The article has plenty of sources and clearly meets WP:V. Some people have claimed it is original research, but by the criteria they use, any list article would either be copied directly from somewhere else (and thus be a probable copyvio) or else constitute original research. *** Crotalus *** 15:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all reasonable arguments. This is an awesome list.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuckin' Keep! per above stated reasons. Well cited, well drafted, and very interesting list. People whining that it's "arbitrary" need to realize that almost _all_ information is arbitrary ;) lunisneko(talk) 05:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Really now. To me this AfD comes off as a deletion just because it's based on a "bad word". There are no bad words. There are words, and there is context. The context of this article is fairly encyclopedic, and the article is well done. The reasons given to delete the article don't hold water. --Ifrit (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...except that the list indiscriminate and the sources cited are not reliable. Hold your water in that. JBsupreme (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not all of us believe that; I see it as a perfectly discriminate list (i.e, Movies that use the word 'Fuck' enough to be notable for it), or at least could become close enough so through regular editing practices that deletion isn't a good solution. I guess if you'd rather have the hierarchy of lists have a missing "single subject, single discriminatory criteria" level ... still, I don't see how this is possibly indiscriminate (as a simpler list like "(all) Movies that use the word 'fuck'" would be), and I still haven't seen anything to indicate that the source isn't reliable. Celarnor Talk to me 06:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Celarnor, most of the films in this list are not notable for using the f-word a lot. If you look at the citations, these are just family-friendly resources that say, this is how many vulgar words were used, period. They don't prop up any of the films as notable for excessive profanity, just reports the word count. Some on the list are known for their profanity, certainly, but it is misleading to say that all these films are "known" for their frequent f-word usage. We the editors put such films in the list based on the word counts, personally invoking their importance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what it is now, and I'm fine with that as long as there's a lower bound (i.e, 100 in this case) to distinguish it from "List of movies containing the word 'Fuck'", which I'd be more opposed to. But even were that not enough, it could quite easily become a list of movies particularly notable for a high count of the word; deletion isn't a necessary step for that to happen, so I don't see how it helps any. Celarnor Talk to me 04:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. votes by SPA accounts that do not cite policy have been discarded. Notability is demonstrated by non-trivial secondary sources not assertion Spartaz Humbug! 05:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kohana (Web Framework)

edit
Kohana (Web Framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any references in reliable, third-party sources to support notability of this PHP web framework. All references in the article are to the primary source. VG ☎ 08:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look here Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks and here List_of_web_application_frameworks you'll see you could delete most of them :-) Ekerazha (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can but, that has no bearing on this particular discussion. If you want to nominate them based on policies and guidelines I'll gladly look at them on those basis but, I'm not gonna play the "if you delete my article, you have to delete all these others game". Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that and this isn't "my article" (I never contributed to it), I just replied to your "aarrgh not another one.." :-) Ekerazha (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you said "keep or delete every PHP framework" at a different AfD. I may have assumed wrongly that you were simply carrying on the same discussion here. If so I apologise. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was another discussion and that product was more notable than this, so yes, you've assumed it wrongly ;) Ekerazha (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it seems notable enough to me. Google gives 114,000 for "Kohana PHP" and, while most are blogs or news sites that probably aren't popular/mainstream enough to be used as sources, I'm not convinced that none exist. I just can't sort through all the blogs to find them. --Sydius (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about hits: only two dice.com jobs list Kohana [23], and always in a list together with other similar PHP MVC frameworks, so it doesn't sound like it has much real life following. VG ☎ 16:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a job at ODesk, note that searching for Kohana won't return this job, already ASSIGNED jobs don't list in the search [24] Intel352 (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— isaiahdw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep -- I think it is important to note, for historical record, that the Kohana PHP framework was a community fork of the popular CodeIgniter PHP framework. This alone merits an entry. The framework itself is also gaining popularity among experienced PHP developers, due to it's innovative and elegant approach to PHP5 web development. It is also listed as an official GoPHP5 compatible project, thus KohanaPHP will gain increased notability as PHP5 adoption continues to rise. Overall, KohanaPHP is an important contribution to PHP5. A recently created jobs website is available at kohanajobs.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neovive (talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Neovive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep -- Notability is a pretty lame reason to delete this article. It's a very active framework, with more frequent releases than CodeIgniter (which it branched from). It is also one of the better PHP frameworks available. Intel352 (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not understand why someone would even suggest removing this article? [25] Kohana is the first result for 'PHP 5 Framework'. We use Kohana as our framework of choice at work, as it is one of the best PHP frameworks available, it is definately very notable! Parkinm
  • Keep - Kohana is also notable for being one of the few strict PHP5 frameworks out there, most PHP frameworks are PHP4 compatible, Kohana utilizes advanced features provided by PHP5 such as SPL, Iterators, Interfaces, etc. Kohana is also not in the class of PHP frameworks attempting to imitate Ruby on Rails, which would make those frameworks (CakePHP, for example) less notable than Kohana. Kohana is on the cutting-edge of PHP frameworks and it is increasing in popularity because developers are realizing it's potential.kolanos

213.123.197.81 (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 213.123.197.81 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (User:parkin_m does not exist)
— 217.85.143.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
A PHP framework more notable than this (with syntax highlighting on NetBeans and with more hits on Google) has already been removed, so there wouldn't be any surprise if the Kohana page will be removed. Ekerazha (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to who? Other PHP frameworks (CakePHP, Symfony etc.) have entire books written about them, so it's trivial to establish notability. Since you seem to know something about Kohana, please add references from reliable, third-party sources to the article, and it won't be deleted. Simply claiming here that Kohana is "big" carries little weight. VG ☎ 14:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kohana is listed on GoPHP5.org which was referenced on InfoWorld [26]. Kohana ORM guide is available on Scribd [27]. Kohana is global - with 8 locally-managed mirrors for languages other than US-English. The fork from CodeIgniter was covered on devreview [28]. Neovive —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
— Geertdd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep — Kohana is still relatively new and, as such, doesn't have books or many external resources. Given its status as an Open Source Framework branched from another Open Source Framework whose page is not being considered for deletion, I'd say this should stay for the cross-talk. Would it be worthwhile to ask some software review programs and other projects to take a look at Kohana and write reviews or thoughts about it, then link to those from the page? What kind of time frame are we looking at to avoid deletion? Again, I don't believe deleting is a valid action here, but what are our options and timelines if you're bent in that direction? JAAulde (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— JAAulde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - I think the rationale for deletion is a complete farce. Since when did anything require a book or other reference to prove it's existence other than it's existence. To take another example JISC Collections, they have their own page within Wikipedia and have no external references other than links to their web site and a blog. JISC Collections certainly don't have book written about them and as such have as much right to exist on Wikipedia as the Kohana PHP framework does. I think it is a disgrace that am item, which obviously exists albeit new is considered not worthy of reference - surely that defeats the point of what a reference is! samsoir, (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion normally lasts 5 days. There's at least one book about CodeIgniter, but notability (in the Wikipedia sense) is not inherited, so Kohana being a fork of CodeIgniter does not automatically make it notable. Also, blog-based reviews don't help much either, because they don't count as reliable sources. VG ☎ 20:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 05:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of hip hop singers

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of hip hop singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pointless and neglected list which fails list guidelines and is obviously better served by categories. Far too vague to be useful and we already have a large enough problem with non-notable hip hop articles. JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transnationality Index

edit
Transnationality Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, incomprehensible. No speedy deletion criteria fits for this case. Alexius08 (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Houn. It seems to me that the nomination was based on a misunderstanding and can be quickly closed. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Wrong venue. Please relist at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Animals/Quiz

edit
AfDs for this article:
Portal:Animals/Quiz (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Animals/Quiz|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nobody is going for this quiz since a few months ago... Mark Chung (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cliché

edit
Cliché (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

cliché is a dictionary subject. The Wikipedia page Cliché has existed since April 2005 when it was first created by an IP address, and it has not developed as an encyclopaedia article. It is time to hit it on the head (see Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and retain expansion tag until the article improves. An important literary/cultural topic that can easily pass the WP:NAD criterion of denotation, becoming at least on par with simile, metaphor, or pun. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I agree with expansion. There are some instances where a dictionary definition falls short in helping one to understand a word, and further explanation is appropriate, and nominator is right that this hasn't been developed. A person should be able to type in the word cliche or Cliché and be directed to an article that has more than this, and there is room for improvement. The topic is appropriate in any event. As with double negative, a cliche is (generally, but not always) something to avoid in writing, and requires an understanding of what a cliche is and why its use is discretionary. Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep plenty of WP:RS, encycopedic subject. AfD is not for articles that just need "growing"/improvement.Sticky Parkin 14:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per above. AFD is not cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it needs cleaning up I think it needs deleting. It is a dictionary term not an encyclopaedic one. That it has not been expanded in three and a half years is an indication of this. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. It's an indication that there are few editors willing to actually sit down and tackle difficult stubs, rather than pick at low hanging fruit. In part, it's a consequence of systemic bias and recentism. It's easy to flesh out an article on a currently popular public figure in North America or Europe, or on something on the television or the World Wide Web. It's a lot harder to tackle a stub that requires a lot of preparatory reading for the layperson. Equally, it's a consequence of the sheer number of stubs on Wikipedia.

      But deletion isn't the answer. Our policy is to keep stubs that have potential for expansion. Back when Wikipedia first started, the thinking was that these stubs would eventually be expanded, and that is still as true today as it was then. True, we've raised a lot of articles to featured status since then, and our standards are a lot higher. But we've also gained a whole lot more stubs to expand, in that time, as well. To see the expansion process in action, look how long it has already taken some articles to be expanded. North Asia took almost five years to expand beyond a 2 sentence stub, for example. That is the sort of timescale that we have to expect on a project written by unpaid volunteers.

      Today's expansions have included Spoiled brat (AfD discussion), which has languished in random-collection-of-occurrences-in-fiction hell since May 2005, making it almost as old as this article. Loaded language (AfD discussion), similarly, has been around since May 2003. An administrator hitting a delete button wasn't any part of the solution to either of their problems. Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The reading list demonstrates that there is much that can said about this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here a a couple more books on the subject [29][30] and it's been the object of lots of academic study [31]. That goes far beyond dictionary definition of the word. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Factor (2009 film)

edit
AfDs for this article:
The Human Factor (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability guideline for future films recommends that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date (hopefully, Morgan Freeman's recent car accident will be followed by a speedy recovery, but it is one example of how a film might be disrupted by events beyond the filmmakers' control). We've seen a lot of projects fall by the wayside at the last minute, so this is the only way of ensuring that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile, with major stars attached, that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Projects can be put on hold at the last minute while a director tackles another film (e.g. Spielberg's Lincoln), we had the potential actors' strike, and look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike. Projects unaffected by any strike shenanigans, yet which are still in development hell, include Jurassic Park IV (which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, and which was actually supposed to be released in 2005), and White Jazz. State of Play, which had Brad Pitt and Edward Norton mere weeks away from filming in November 2007, was a hair's breadth away from being abandoned after Pitt jumped ship. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 07:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a rule called the crystal ball. You can't make a page for something that doesn't exist yet, even if you get notable coverage of it in reliable third party sources. Dream Focus (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nominator's thorough argument. I would recommend a possible mention at Nelson Mandela#Cinema. The article can be recreated if filming begins, which makes it more of a guaranteed event for which there will be substantial coverage (production, reception, themes) as opposed to messy negotiations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure). Huon (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Douglas-Hamilton

edit
Douglas Douglas-Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete in order to move Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 14th Duke of Hamilton to here to comply with MoS proscribed use of titles in article name, tidy unwieldy name and reduce to likely successful search term. Name is unique.Ex nihil (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 07:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Hill

edit
Caitlin Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No real notability of this person. I'd say WP:BLP1E. Most sources given only mention her name and when she has been the subject of a report, its only because of her YouTube videos. Again, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted" TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 06:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A superstar? Really? I think you'll have to get a citation for that. I don't believe she "was a notable figure for some time on the Internet". Another flash in the pan YouTuber. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 11:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If nothing else, the fact that she was one of the handful of original You-Tubers offered Partner status should be reason enough to keep. On top of this fact, her continued subscribership ranks her among the top You-Tube channels. Look it up if you need citations - it's easy enough to check this information from You-Tube.
She also has a continued presence outside You-Tube as evidenced by her StickAm channel and her real-life activities. The article may need some additional citations and some work, but the subject of Caitlin Hill AKA "TheHill88" should be kept as encyclopedic based on her effect on / reflection of society. Like it or not, this girl IS a reflection of young people today, and for this article that should be kept.... NDCompuGeek (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being "one of the handful of original You-Tubers offered Partner status" is not enough for a keep, being on Stickam is hardly notable and she has had no effect on society. What's your point about her being a "reflection of young people today"? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 16:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Partner status thing should certify notability. She has an exceptionally large presence on You-Tube, and it is verified by this offer. The reference to her Stickam account was also mentioned with her other activities. I just meant it as an easily referenceable example. As for the reflection comment, it's pretty much just the way it is. I believe that this girl's videos are a representation of what most youth may believe. No citation available (it's my opinion, for pete's sake!☺), but there you have it. I'm not trying to be ornery or anything (sorry if it comes out that way)....
Not to mention, your argument for deletion is based on the idea that it was one particular event that she is "famous" (pseudo-famous?) for. It is an ongoing thing, not one particular event. Her popularity continues to grow, and she continues to do real-life activities that can be notable (and probably should be included in the article). Kind of like saying the girl that played "Stephanie Tanner" is famous for one particular event just because she played on that TV show - what else has she done? That show (or this website) provides the context of her notability in and of itself. (Sorry, it's what my 4-year-old daughter is watching on TV right now ☺ ....). NDCompuGeek (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say "She has an exceptionally large presence on You-Tube". This is not true. She is pretty much unknown on YouTube now and she may have had a large presence on the site when it first started but as of now, she has no large presence on there. You mean Jodie Sweetin who played "Stephanie Tanner" and according to her IMDb page, she has done more film/tv work since being on the show that made her famous. Can't really compare someone who has been on an ABC show to someone who had minor success on YouTube for a couple of home-made videos and hasn't moved on from that. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, for the purposes of Wikipedia notability, the guideline is that once notable, always notable. Notability is not lost with the passage of time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She might be notable under WP:ENTERTAINER because she "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I can't find anything else that she meets on WP:PEOPLE though. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Age and Courier Mail references (1 each) would appear reliable secondary sources and are specific to her -- Paul foord (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response the Age article deosnt meet the requirements of WP:N of significant coverage only half the article is about Hill. The Courier Mail article again isnt significant coverage, its this lack of significant coverage in reliable sources thats the issue. Gnangarra 03:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query these are the articles cited - I am puzzled, they may not be large articles but both appear to be specifically about Hill -- Paul foord (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response the Age article features a picture of Caitlin Hill and has a word count ratio of 390 to 129 towards Hill. The 129 words not covering Hill are providing background information. The courier mail article also features a picture of Caitlin Hill and covers her exclusively.
According to WP:N, both sources should meet the requirements of "significant coverage" and "independent of the subject". Sdddlt (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment neither article is significant coverage both as highlighted by Paul foorddiff are reliable secondary sources, there is no significant coverage in a reliable source to assert notability. Gnangarra 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment where are the reliable sources that meet the WP:N requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject Gnangarra 03:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Sdddlt's remarks above. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so there is nothing else beyond two secondary sources to assert notability. Gnangarra 14:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Two sources. One, two. Two is multiple. So we have multiple independent reliable sources. Anything else is gravy. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yep there is two secondary sources possessing some quality but neither(even combined) provide significant coverage to assert notability. Gnangarra 15:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You made that claim above and it simply isn't convincing. Both articles focus on Hill. Both articles consist of only material about Caitlin or material providing background. There's more than enough coverage there to be significant coverage. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Age article doesnt focus in Hill it focus is Youtube, and gives some information on Hill to establish her credentials to make comments on YouTube. 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment There are other sources where Hill is being mentioned: The Darfur Wall Introduces Advocates Program newswiretoday.com, "Top YouTube videographers descend on San Francisco" CNET, How to Win Friends and Influence YouTube flakmag.com. Additionally there is her 60_minutes TV appearance, which can be found on several video sites, and a not yet aired segment on Today_Tonight (see Blog of Angela Thomas)
So there are a couple of sources where Hill is being mentioned, plus the two already discussed sources which are exclusively covering her story. Sdddlt (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
response all have passing mentions, crystal ball ref, and blogs. The discussed stories as discussed are secondary sources. the issue is notability and there isnt any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability.
Response Yes, these additional sources don't cover her exclusively. But you can add them on top of the two exclusive sources. And I still don't understand your concerns regarding notability and significant coverage. WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. The last sentence of this definition says that exclusivity superseds triviality. couriermail and theAge are both exclusive on Hill. And according to the footnote-example #1 in WP:GNG-"Significant coverage", her coverage in CNET, Flakmag and 60Minutes are arguably non-trivial.Sdddlt (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of One Piece pirate crews

edit
List of One Piece pirate crews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List is merely a directory with a few plot summaries. It is almoast completely redundant to List of One Piece characters, List of minor One Piece characters, and recently deleted List of One Piece filler characters. It has no lead. It is completely unsourced. And it is written from an in-universe perspective, for example listing characters, who die during the course of the story, as "Deceased". -- Goodraise (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as exoelectron emission; nomination withdrawn. --Itub (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exoelectron

edit
Exoelectron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It is possible that this article does not meet the WP:Notability criterion. It is also an orphan, and unreferenced. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 05:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Matheus

edit
Connor Matheus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable television actor. While having had bit parts on major shows, he has no significant coverage in third party sources. A single account and IP address keeps removing my notability tag, so I figured it's time to just delete this article. ~Eliz81(C) 05:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect. While delete !votes are the majority, merging and redirecting (as a likely search term) will amount to the same result without loss of information SoWhy 07:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action Battle Team

edit
Action Battle Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable radio program. no third party reliable sources previously deleted twice under WP:CSD#A7 non notable group/organisation etc, IMHO could also have been deleted as WP:CSD#G11 blatant advertising. Tagged as WP:CSD#G4 recreation of deleted material declined as not being a respost[32] though recreation occurred within 24 hours of deletion Gnangarra 04:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss,Commander,Promise

edit
Kiss,Commander,Promise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reviews for this story. VG ☎ 21:00, 12 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, Mr.Z-man 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Is unsourced so does not demonstrate notability by multiple non-trivial secondary sources. Merges can only happen if the information to merge is sourced. This isn't.. Redirects to editing discretion and recreation permitted if secondary sources appear Spartaz Humbug! 05:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VersionTracker Pro

edit
VersionTracker Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above reference is actually to web site VersionTracker, which makes the software even less notable. Not much point in creating a redirect either. VG ☎ 08:14, 16 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, Mr.Z-man 03:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Edge (weapon)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Soul Edge (weapon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Second nomination for the subject. Since the last AfD no sources for notability have turned up, and no active effort to improve the article has been made. Article is still primarily WP:PLOT for the Soul series of video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. All this really is an in-universe summary of the series' plot with info on Soul Edge's abilites (which, very briefly, are: to shapeshift, corrupt minds and reform itself). The weapon itself isn't notable, and any information excluding its abilities is already covered, so no need for this article. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The keeps from the previous AfD (closed as no consensus) all claimed the article will be merged. That didn't happen, so it's time to delete this article that provides no third party sources to assert notability for an item mentioned only in its fictional universe. VG ☎ 08:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No comprehensive coverage from reliable sources on this weapon (i.e. no substantial information on the conception, design, and reception of this fictional weapon itself): subject is not notable per WP:GNG. Jappalang (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete restatement of plot that can easily be talked about in the game articles themselves. JuJube (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The information regarding reception is extremely relevant and unique amongst the thousands of other fictional such ideas. To say the weapon itself has significant relevance to the series would be a dry understatement. The information contained here should be largely relocated to the Soul (series) article and all links redirected there.--199.79.10.117 (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not meeting Wikipedia:Five Pillars. — despite !voting keep last time, this has had plenty of time for users involved in the article to show proof of significant coverage of the weapon via secondary sources or to merge the article in light of a no consensus conclusion of the previous AfD. Neither has been done. Article still consists of plot summary rehashing, and indiscriminate information. MuZemike (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: the prior keep !votes had questionable merit the last time, based on alleging that reliable third-party sources exist. They don't. Time to delete. Randomran (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep or redirect to external link The information about a villain can only be obtained from the media that originate it. Because of this, it's rather difficult (for not say impossible) to obtain reliable third-party sources. At last, the article should be reduced, and contains a link to a specialized wiki (like the specific Soul Calibur Wiki [33]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRFraga (talk • contribs) 19:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not entirely true. The information about a villain can only be obtained from the media that originate it, if no reliable third-party sources also have said information. That hasn't happened with this article, which instead rehashes the series' plot. Soul Edge isn't a character either, so there's no justification for having it in an article on Soul series characters. And I would be careful about using another wiki as a source; it may not have as high standards as Wikipedia in terms of sourcing, verification and attribution. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not written with WP:WAF guidelines, not attributable to a reliable, independent sources (WP:V), no assertion of notability (WP:N), excessive in-game detail for this general encyclopedia (WP:GAMECRUFT) - basically, this entity can be summarized in a single paragraph within the video game's article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to the election debate page and protect per WP:BLP1E and a dash of common sense, any content can be merged into the main article at anyone's choosing. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history can be found at this article instead. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe the Plumber

edit
Joe the Plumber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One off mention in a debate. This guy is not notable. Onorem♠Dil 02:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Child

edit
Abigail Child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possibly notable filmmaker, but article was created by User:Ac729 as the only article (except to add this subject to a filmmaker list). Most of the content, except for the non-inline references, are from the filmmaker's website and so not reliable. Prior to my edits, the article included more resume-esque material. I strongly suspect this is autobiographical but that a future editor MAY be able to find reliable sources. But as it stands, this article does not meet that criteria. JRP (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Cunard has rewritten the article to meet all requirements and I agree that the individual passes notability criteria based on this rewrite. JRP (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a9, album by nonnotable artist with no article. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnitude (Album)

edit
Magnitude (Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable song album must have been asleep by non notable band. Don't recall a speedy category for albums. Dlohcierekim 02:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good sign when I can't find anything about the band on BillBoard or Allmusic. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up Call (band)

edit
Wake Up Call (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Marginal assertion of notability (though not backed by sources), so not eligible for CSD. Still fails WP:MUSIC. Recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 02:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bdsguitarist (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC) This article is written about a band that fits some of the criteria from the Notability and Music Guidlines for encyclopedia pages.[reply]

1. Wake Up Call has won a few local battle of bands since entering the scene. 2. Wake Up Call has been featured on broadcasted radio stations. 3. Wake Up Call is changing the Omaha scene, rather than having hardcore metal music ruling, it has brought back the essence of mid-90's rock.

There is no reason for the article Wake Up Call(band) to be deleted.

8Do people found any verify source, or it's just a bioliving things.--Freeway8 02:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7xbass (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Wake Up Call is keeping a genre of music alive in a diverse music scene which has produced bands the likes of 311, Bright Eyes, the Faint, and Grasshopper Takeover. They are popular among locals and several other bands that do not yet have national recognition, such as Venaculas, are permitted to maintain their page. Wikipedia is a valuable source of mass media and Wake Up Call should be permitted to maintain their page.[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because an article has not been deleted yet, it doesn't necessarily follow that another article of similar quality should not be deleted. In addition, the fact that their local scene is diverse and has produced bands that are notable does not mean that they themselves are notable. And any claims to notability must be supported by reliable sources. We're not going to take anybody's word for it without evidence. — Gwalla | Talk 20:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saddle fitting

edit
Saddle fitting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Reposted to AfD after PROD was removed by page creator. Vianello (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antwan S. McCoy

edit
Antwan S. McCoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not establish notability of the subject. He is a pastor of a non-notable church, has appeared on a local TV program, and has founded some organizations which don't meet the criteria for notability. These elements don't come together to make him notable at this time. (National TV coverage or consistent coverage over a long period of time would pull this article into notable territory.) JRP (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lunchtime Basketball Association

edit
Lunchtime Basketball Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

More than likely complete nonsense about a "competition" developed by school children during their lunch break. At the least, no evidence of notability, citing independent reliable sources, has been provided Mattinbgn\talk 01:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Note: This is a contested PROD. Reasons for disputing the PROD were given at Talk:Lunchtime Basketball Association. I don't find them convincing. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you're seeing that source listed? I only see two, being basketballsa.com.au and blackwoodrec.com.au, both of which make no mention whatsoever of this so called "Association". -- Longhair\talk 03:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Is there anyone else who is willing to travel to Australia to see if the league exists? If so, please send me a postcard. Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete- This is clearly a real league I can vouch for its validity as I often bring my young sons out to watch the games and they love it and I think this page will help make other people aware of the league and possibly help the league to grow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.6.143.85 (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Mallery

edit
Billy Mallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician, lacks reliable sources. Icewedge (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 advertisement. Pegasus «C¦T» 09:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celsius energy drink

edit
Celsius energy drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article, borderlines on advertisement, but not quite. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alissa oh

edit
Alissa oh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Compete lack of RS; there is nearly nothing out there on this young artist. Icewedge (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism (CSD G3) and salted based on creation three times today.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald McDonald: the Movie

edit
Ronald McDonald: the Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the names of cities in the United States

edit
Origins of the names of cities in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If this article is any indication, there aren't very many cities in the United States. Just another hodgepodge list, randomly stitched together. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be a choice between one format or another. One can have a table that shows the etymology of the names of cities, in addition to burying the information in some of the individual city articles. My only objection to this is that it's unsourced and poorly organized. However, there are occasions where readers are looking for information in one place, rather than searching one article after the next. Mandsford (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind that one place would be the Article about the city your interested in. To list all on 1 Article would then be attempting to show trends in naming places ... that falls close to WP:OR territory, wouldn't it? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 01:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see it that way. There are plenty of reference books that document the origins of place names, and its been a subject written about by authors such as Joseph Nathan Kane and Mario Pei, so there's no need for this to be original research (and, by the same token, no reason for this article to be unsourced). The reality is that there is no standardized format for articles about places, so not all articles are going to include a note about how the place got its name, even if one were inclined to look there. And yes, there are times when we want to know the origins of more than one name and a comparative table is a more efficient way of finding that information. If you learn that Chicago is a name of Algonquin origin, for instance, the question comes up about how many other places have Algonquin names; and a good table (this one is beyond fixing, even with sources) can reveal more than the copout that "It's an American Indian word" (as if there was one American Indian language). When done well, reference tables can be an excellent supplement to existing articles. Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good food for thought (as usual, seeing whom its from) but, I personally still feel that this Article is not worth saving. I would have no objection against a Article written in the vein you describe (AKA "do not salt"). Is there anyone up to the daunting task of a userfication and rewrite though? Or do we let this one go and hope the next one is better? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orange County Underground Burlesque Society

edit
Orange County Underground Burlesque Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This one is so far underground that notability cannot be detected. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Well... this is naturally a very hard close, and I ask everyone to read through this before making any judgment calls about this close. Going by “votes” it’s split right down the middle (maybe one or two going one way or the other), so that’s not the basis for this close. You see, there are four camps of users in this debate. The first is requesting deletion because the subject is not notable. The second is those saying the article should be deleted as a result of the WP:BLP issues evident, mainly the subject requesting deletion. The third group is those saying the article should be kept in spite of the BLP issues, and the fourth group is saying that despite the BLP claims, Jolie has sufficient notability where the subject of the article requesting deletion is too famous to warrant it. The first and third camps (“Doesn’t pass WP:PORNBIO” and “But regardless of her desire for privacy, her career was public.”) are relatively minor in size, so it becomes really a question of which is right, the second or the fourth, as well as the consensus reached.

The second camp wants the article deleted in the spirit of the BLP policy, which is certainly valid. The subject said she does not want it affecting her life negatively, which is what said policy tries to keep from happening on this encyclopedia. As Durova stated, “The difference to Wikipedia's completeness is trivial; the difference to her life is enormous.” This is certainly true, we have to realize that Wikipedia plays a major role in the lives of those that are notable, for better or worse. Consequently, the fourth camp says that despite the request, the subject is notable beyond simple means. That creates a different question: How notable does one have to be to usurp BLP? Certainly if John McCain requested deletion then it would be impossible to do, as he’s very encyclopedic. However, if John Leovich were to (be alive and) request deletion, his notability is just barely of encyclopedic worth, and deletion of the biography wouldn’t be an issue. Is Jolie McCain notable or Leovich notable? obviously most bios are in between, which causes the grey area problem. She was a penthouse pet, which while nice, I don’t think anyone would say that’s Britannica-worthy. Now, is there anything defamatory in the bio? No. Does that matter according to the BLP policy? No. Is she suddenly going to become world-famous as a result of this bio being gone from the site? No.

This is where administrative discretion comes in. Any admin could just say "no consensus" and walk away, but the concerns over how the BLP policy applies will still be there, as will the debate over how notable you need to be to qualify for no article deletion. It comes down to WP:NPF in a way. While she is a public figure, technically, she is relatively unknown, and as a result bios such as this should be treated with care. So, if there is no consensus on what to do with the article, what does our desire to not cause harm to those we have an entry on ask of us? It is not stated specifically one way or the other, but removal of an article that fails to attain consensus where the subject has requested deletion is, I believe, a great start. Now, I could care less whether or not Jolie has an article on here; this close is based on what BLP means not just to the encyclopedia that we know, but to the encyclopedia the world knows. If a barely notable person requests deletion, and there is no consensus on what to do, what happens? Well, under the concept of basic human dignity, the article, sans proof of there being strong notability, should be deleted.

I definitely looked at this AfD for a while, and feel that this is the best option for Wikipedia and the subject in question. If you have an issue with the close (I imagine many will both love and hate this close), then discuss with me before you get angry at it. If enough complain about the close then I’ll self-DRV, though I truly believe this is the correct close. My close is based both on the reading of the AfD and, more importantly, our policy on living people. Like I said above though, if you have a problem, then talk to me about it. I'll try and explain my reasoning, though I hope that I did so above.

Close: no consensus, default to delete. Wizardman 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Jolie

edit
AfDs for this article:
Ginger Jolie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It has become a detriment to her work environment and her personal life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaty2 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Keep I am a little confused, but it appears that you are claiming she wants it removed. If there are any inaccuracies, we certainly want to fix them, but if the article is accurate (and no claim is made otherwise) then I am not sure what the criteria for deletion is. Also, we have no way to verify your claim that you "represent" her. Being an encyclopedia, I don't think we can delete an otherwise accurate and balanced article solely because it is inconvenient for the subject. Speedy keep for lack of criteria in an otherwise good faith nomination. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is sourced and indicates that the subject is notable. If the subject of the article wishes this article deleted, I do not think an AfD discussion is the proper place to bring this article. Maybe someone can point you to the correct place to raise this concern, Khaty2. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment According to BLP, the AFD is the place to discuss it. We do handle biographies of living people very carefully so we don't harm anyone with inaccuracies, but this article seems to be well within policy. WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help has info for people who want to have their own article deleted, although I am not sure it will help much. I have to admit that I am against with the idea of deleting an article ONLY because the person it covers wants it deleted, purely on principal. While I try to empathise, Wikipedia's role is document facts that can be verified only, not to decide who it helps or hurts. I am sure that MANY non-living persons would also like to have their articles deleted. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thank you, Pharmboy. I am new here. I thought we use AfD to decided if the subject is notable and if the article is sourced. The link you gave also contains Wikipedia:Blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. This indicates that Wikipedia does consider the privacy of the subject. Using only notability and sourcing, I think the article should be Kept. But if the subject's privacy is also considered, this complicates the matter. I therefore change my Keep to No opinion. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment from my limited experience, that is usually referring to victims of crimes who are still living. We do add some extra sensitivity in bios of crime victims but in this instance, we have someone who posed nude in a magazine, won a notable award of that magazine, then had a paid website with photos of herself. Privacy can't really be an issue if her lack of privacy is purely due to her own choices. This isn't a singular incident, it was a long term career choice. She appears to be changing careers (my guess). If the change becomes verifiable, then it could be added to the article for accuracy. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I agree with Pharmboy's assessment. I have seen incidents in the past where someone is justified in having their article deleted, but these are few and far between and almost always involving an event that was not of their own control. If every person who wanted the negative information generated through their own personal choices to conveniently disappear, I'm afraid we would have to install one of those "Now Serving" electronic signs. Trusilver 06:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What sources? The only two I see are a webarchive of her old website, which is clearly not a reliable secondary source and lukeisback which as I understand is not a reliable secondary source either. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep also. Though I have to take issue with the statement that this is all her own choice--that's just way too easy. But regardless of her desire for privacy, her career was public. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She doesn't meet the WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO notability standard. I usually don't bother with porn bio afd's (its not my area of expertise), but I am extremely sensitive to requests for anonymity. So even if the nominator's basis for the deletion request is unknown, I would err on the side of deltion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - This article has already been the subject of one AfD which resulted in a keep. The subject's wishes that the article be removed are not a valid reason for its deletion. Changed position, see below. Trusilver 03:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you mean someone added decent sources to the article (I'll have a look in a second). Okay then. I'll grant you a bit on the notability thing but, unless the "accusations" in the article can be sourced to 3rd party reliable sources I'm still going with delete unless rewritten with everything sourced accordingly. The "subject" could very well have lied in interviews and such which invalidates that stuff as sources to me. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. Only 'sources' are a webarchive of her old website, which is clearly not a reliable secondary source and probably shouldn't be used at all and lukeisback, which as I understand is not a great source either and likely doesn't establish notability. Being a Penthouse Pet of the month suggests she could be notable but I don't know if it's really what PORNBIO means when it says "well-known award" (of the year maybe) and in any case, we still need coverage in reliable secondary sources to prove she is notable. If better sources come up I will reconsider but it is intrinsic on those claiming that she is notable to produce them not for me to prove they don't exist. (In any BLP, particularly when the subject has allegedly requested deletion (for those who think this is unfair, I would say the same thing when the subject created the article) we should exercise caution in deciding whether a subject is notable.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do know that an editor is expected to go and look for other sources when participating in an AFD, you can't just rely on the article. The policy is that the subject must be verifiable, not verified. I have added enough sources below to verify. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I consider it unreasonable that people expect me to research a subject I know absolutely nothing about and have no interest in researching and I'm not even convinced is notable. As I have little or no idea about what reliable secondary sources exist for pornography related bios and the subject is definitely not extremely notable, it would be rather difficult for me to even know where to start. I consider that those editors who repeatedly assert a subject should be required to prove their claims, in the article. In most cases, this would require research in the appropriate resources which I presume someone familiar with the subject or subject matter will know much more about, and will usually involve more then a simple Google search. In this case, since there appear to be many people who have already asserted she is notable, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't 'show me the sources' which proves to them she is notable. As it stands, you've succeeding in unearthing a bunch of stuff, most of which don't appear to be reliable secondary sources and definitely none of them seem to have substantial coverage. As I've said, I'm not saying this subject is definitely not notable, I'm simply saying it's far from proven with all the information I've seen so far therefore I'm leaning towards delete but willing to reassess my position when those who assert she is notable come up with the sources they claim exist. Also you do understand there is a big difference between verifiability and notability right? The fact that she won pet of the month and various other things she did could probably be verified but that still doesn't make her notable in itself. You need coverage in reliable secondary sources for that. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She does pass WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO. Being a Penthouse Pet of the Month is generally considered in pornography AfDs to count as an "award from a major pornographic magazine". Epbr123 (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She also gets 186,000 ghits, and 40,000 image hits. You have to be realistic here, her lack of privacy is not related to her Wikipedia article. She is clearly notable via either WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO. She even has an IMDB Profile and Penthouse is still selling all her DVDs, as are dozens of other stores. Her status as Pet of the Month is easily sourcable. She isn't a crime victim here folks. Her BIO is listed on MANY other websites already, including here, here, here, here (plus an inteview from her, and plenty of lesser bios like here, here, here, here, and her images are available from literally hundreds and hundreds of pays sites. I don't think pity delete votes is conducive to Wikipedia's interests. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The key question is how many of those are reliable secondary sources covering her? IMDB isn't (I do hope you are aware of that). For that matter there are plenty of people with IMDB bios which we don't and should never have articles on (indeed the notability guidelines is quite clear on this issue). The other ones appear dodgy to me as well. One of them is a store website. Another one is a image gallery (which is clearly not a reliable secondary source covering her). Also who's voting in pity? I know I am not. I am voting on the premise that notability needs to be proven and the subjects notability hasn't. So far people have brought up a bunch fo irrelevant stuff most of which don't establish her notability. Given this, and the fact that there is added reason to delete the article, I feel we should err on the side of caution until and unless those who keep asserting she's notable, she's notable can be bothered to do their work properly. I've never understood why people waste time with Google hits and other crap which doesn't establish notability and don't just take the time to find what does establish notability. Coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Barely passes WP:PORNBIO since she was a pet of the month. As to the nom's concerns, the article isn't libelous if the information is true, cited, and NPOV. If she wanted privacy she should have used a pseudonym. Themfromspace (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having won pet of the month is very weak IMHO and in any case, having won an award is only suggestive and not proof of notability. Notability always requires coverage in reliable secondary sources. People winning awards tend to be covered in reliable secondary sources but given that pet of the month isn't exactly a major award it seems to me easily possible one could be pet of the month without being notable. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, Nil Einne, it might not be such a bad idea for you to go and read WP:PORNBIO, seeing that it's directly relevant to this AfD and such. Not only is her "pet of the month" award proof of notability, its OUTLINED DIRECTLY IN THE POLICY. Trusilver 15:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:PORNBIO, the articles existence being inconvenient to her is irrelevant. And if she wanted privacy she shouldn't have appeared in porn films. Tatarian (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator sent me an e-mail requesting the article be deleted, and I replied that AFD was the way to go. However this topic passes notability requirements. The fact this individual has appeared in Penthouse creates notability. The fact this person appeared in such publications and other related work is not Wikipedia's problem. Paul Newman spent much of his professional career bemoaning a terrible film called The Silver Chalice that he made early in his career; but he couldn't take it back. OBVIOUSLY, and this I also noted to the nom, if there is anything untrue in this article, or poorly sourced, then under WP:BLP it has to go. But the fact she was in major magazines, worked for Andrew Blake (major name director in the genre) and so forth -- this can be verified. 23skidoo (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you understand our notability requirements? She has to be covered in reliable secondary sources for us to have an article. If she murdered Paul Newman and Andrew Blake she still wouldn't be notable if she's not covered in reliable secondary sources Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps tilting at windmills, but worth stating all the same: this is a human being that some formula has assigned as 'notable' only because she removed her clothes when she was very young and needed money. A bit more mature now, she's had second thoughts and would like to recover personal privacy and dignity. The difference to Wikipedia's completeness is trivial; the difference to her life is enormous. I wish fellow volunteers at this website dedicated half as much concern for encyclopedic completeness at, say, Category:Foxtrots as they do at the biographies of living, exploited, and regretful young women. The photographs can't be un-taken, but we can decide whether to participate in that exploitation or not. Give her what she asks for; she's asking politely. DurovaCharge! 07:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response. If only that were true. She's not trying to "recover personal privacy and dignity." She's "removing her clothes" for higher-paying publications now, and just wants to protect her income stream by covering up her lower-budget past. That may make an "enormous diffrence" in her life, but it's a more of a scam than an issue of "dignity." There are a lot of women listed on Wikipedia who fall under your description, but this is someone who, according to the request that started this, remains in the sex trade, and is just trying to polish her image so she'll make more money in it in the future. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Durova. Let me add that I think the advice Question authority is generally good. So how about if we question the authority of WP's notability rules for porn stars in this case? Steve Dufour (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the subject doesn't object, I have no problem retaining the usual practice. It's been my belief for a year and a half that marginal notability BLP subjects in any field who request removal ought to have their wishes honored. It costs the encyclopedia very little and earns substantial goodwill. DurovaCharge! 07:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a danger of earning "substantial badwill" in this case. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is a scary sentence. "We will change our believes in being fair and neutral if it makes someone famous happy". That is censorship, and unless there is a case where genuine harm comes to a genuinely innocent party (ie: child victims, etc.) then we don't delete information. Our role at Wikipedia is to document and source FACTS, not to take sides or help people who do things they later regret. Please note, this is her PR PERSON making the request (see article talk). I can't sit and delete an article because of "pity", regardless of who makes the request. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, what if Paris Hilton came on here tomorrow and 'politely' asked that we expunge everything negative from her article because it's inconvenient to her, would you be up for that too? Again, this isn't someone who innocently became the subject of a crime who gained de facto notability against his or her will. This is an adult who made decisions she's not proud of and now would like them to just 'go away'. Sorry...no. It's not like I'm talking to a new person who doesn't know how things work around here. simply put...we do not remove content just because notable people say "pretty please, would you not publish the bad stuff I did." (period/full stop) What makes it more hilarious is that there is nothing bad in the article, it is a fine example of NPOV. She's not unhappy that there's bad stuff written about her, she's unhappy that there is any evidence of her previous career at all. Trusilver 15:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are reasonable limits to be applied. Paris Hilton's work in television, film, modeling, and merchandising makes her notability non-marginal. As an objective measure, specialty encyclopedias of television probably have entries about her for her career as the star of The Simple Life. When a conventional encyclopedia lists a person (or reasonably would be expected to), then that person is too notable for courtesy deletion here. DurovaCharge! 18:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 23skidoo, there are plenty of quality sources here to validate the notability of the subject. JBsupreme (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then add them to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already added some yesterday. And did you know Wikimedia had an image of her just sitting there unlinked? It is now a part of the article as well. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um you added 2 sources which mention her once and once source with a very brief bio. What we want is non-trivial coverage in multiple secondary sources (as the notability guidelines explicitly say). It's all very well improving the article and you should be commended for it, but before you add a bunch of stuff which doesn't establish her notability, why don't you add what we need? Non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Or at least in-depth coverage in one reliable secondary source. Then I could 'vote' keep and be done with this discussion. Incidentally, I have myself tried to find what we need. So far I'm coming up zip. There's nothing I could find in Google News and Google is so full of junk it doesn't help much. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see below) Keep - Plenty of material to the point where she seems to be a well-known public figure. Her actions don't make her Wikipedia notable. She is Wikipedia notable beause of reliable sources writing about her action. Accounting for the concerns listed by her representative, on balance, the article need not be outright deleted to maintain human dignity and privacy needs of the subject. In fact, because of Wikipedia's way treating someone that is fair, Wikipedia is probably the only place she can get a fair shake. -- Suntag ☼ 11:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But where are these reliable secondary sources writing about her? People keep talking about them but no one is producing them. Why is that? Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize for not researching the matter correctly. Prompted by Nil Einne, I took another look and realized that I did an incorrect search. On review, this topic doesn't even merit a BLP balancing since there is not enough reliable source material to maintain an article on the topic. The only thing I found was a mention of her name in aPRNewswire. The topic clearly fails notability - it doesn't even come close. Had this AfD been listed based on notability rather than appealing to the hearts of Wikipedians, this would have been another routine deletion. Regrettably, the present thrust pits our desire to improve the encyclopedia against our being human. That is not warranted for this topic and I urge the closer to delete this based solely on the topic failing to meet notability rather than closing based on a BLP balancing. -- Suntag ☼ 02:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final comment (I hope). The original request came from this request. Make of it what you will. Looks like "**** ******" is trying to move up career wise, to me. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest you remove the alleged real (or alternative) name. While it was allegedly revealed by her, per WP:BLP, it doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia and it adds nothing to this discussion. If you don't, then I suggest the closing admin blank this discussion whatever the outcome Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Marginal notability, subject requests deletion. Mr.Z-man 16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jolie was a Pet of the Month, so she satisfies WP:PORNBIO. The bio is sourced. There is no need to delete this bio. AdjustShift (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I fail to see the point of deleting as it relates to privacy. Google her name and see the result. On the other hand a possible motivation is provided here where it says "she 'likes to be in control'". Well, I guess she does. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link WAS provides is not a reliable source. Within that industry model contracts often specify that fictional captions are likely to be written. Nor, for that matter, is the link itself pertinent. We are discussing an adult who has lived with a specific dilemma for years and has long experience with its nuances; it is very likely that she understands it better than those of us who form an opinion in only a few minutes. If we don't 'see the point' in such a short time, that doesn't mean hers deserves to be ignored. DurovaCharge! 18:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All good points. That's the trouble with these borderline cases. By definition, one can honestly go either way on them. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's why I favor the respectful approach over a paternalistic analysis. Think of Seth Finkelstein and a few others: in a site with finite volunteer time is it really the best use of our energies to retain marginal-value pages despite some subjects fighting very hard to get them deleted, or do we 'reward' ones who resort to sockpuppetry etc. while penalizing those who merely ask politely? If encyclopedic comprehensiveness is the principle at stake, then we gain more overall comprehensiveness by letting this go and redirecting energies elsewhere. There are thousands of species of aphid that don't have a Wikipedia article yet. DurovaCharge! 20:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think just about notable enough for the "marginal notability" rule not to apply. It also appears that her request for removal is because the article harms her future career in mainstream modelling, rather than genuine privacy concerns. If she was trying a completely different career, then the request would be more reasonable (although I would probably still vote to keep). --Tango (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC) (Changing to full keep given the newly found award nominations --Tango (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Unfortunate Keep I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't responsible for a person regretting their life's activities. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A head of state is incomparable to this case, and you know it. I see two approaches to the "keepers" at this afd. One seems to be a god-like spiteful approach - "she shouldn't have done porn". This doesn't deserve a response. The second approach originates from two huge misconceptions that some editors have regarding the sub-notability guidelines and the goal of afd discussions.
  • Some editors think that if someone meets the applicable notability standard (WP:ATHLETE, WP:PORNBIO, etc.) it automatically requires that there be a Wikipedia article about them. That's wrong. Wikipedia:Notability (people) specifically states that "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception" (emphasis added). Additionally, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, which covers the porn sub-guideline, specifically states that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Thus, exceptions should be made even if a person meets the applicable guideline. What better place to apply this exception clause when a person barely meets (if at all) the wp:pornbio standard and requests that the article be deleted?
  • Armed with the misconception regarding the use of Wikipedia's notability policy, editors perpetuate this error in the afd discussion. They come to an afd discussion looking to spew the correct wikilinked alphabetical guideline, thinking that an afd discussion is a contest about who knows Wikipedia guidelines the best. That's wrong. An afd discussion is for editors to have a discussion in which they weigh the notability guidelines, their own common sense, and the overall circumstances of the article.
  • The totality of all the circumstances clearly point to deletion. She barely meets the guideline (if at all), there's an alleged request for deletion from the person herself, and the deletion most probably won't impede the advancement of civilization. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment So anyone who wants their BIO deleted should get it deleted, in spite of any other policy that exists? PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course not. Are you responding to what I said? Cuz (sorry) it seems like you didn't read what I wrote. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not comparing a head of state to this case. If a notable individual wants us to delete her bio, we shouldn't delete it. We don't have the bio of Krista Allen on Wikipedia because she wants her bio on Wikipedia. We have her bio because she satisfies our notability standard. Brewcrewer is wrong to say that Jolie barely meets the guideline. Jolie was a Pet of the Month (satisfies WP:PORNBIO), she has participated in Andrew Blake movies, and appeared in numerous magazines. We have bios of several porn stars like her. And deleting or keeping her bio on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the advancement of civilization. AdjustShift (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The standard I've applied is that if a person has an entry in a traditional encyclopedia, including specialty encyclopedias, or reasonably ought to, then that person is too notable to obtain courtesy deletion from this one. So the counterexamples: heads of state, Paris Hilton--those would be covered at encyclopedias of politics or entertainment and wouldn't be eligible for courtesy deletion. This individual posed nude for a few magazines when she was barely of legal age to give consent, and upon gaining greater maturity regretted that decision. It's impossible to write a comprehensive biography about her because the only argument for her notability is a short span of time when she removed her clothes for a camera (how much talent does that take? and how important is it, compared to a head of state?). DurovaCharge! 22:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Any argument quickly breaks down if it involves the phrases "advancement of civilization" and "Paris Hilton". EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find this to be an acceptable argument. And while I don't like precedents like this, I don't like the implication of "we will remove your article if you are famous...but not too famous", I am going to research the subject some more and then re-examine my position based on that. Trusilver 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Other than in the case of crime victims who are notable for being a victim only (or very very similar), where is the policy that covers "courtesy deletion"? This is about the nom (Jolie's PR person) wanting it deleted because it helps her career. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In clearly borderline cases of notability like this, I see no reason not to comply with her reasonable request to delete her BLP. Wikipedia loses nothing by omitting this biography. krimpet✽ 23:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think her request to delete her bio is a reasonable request. The bio doesn't say any controversial things about Jolie. And "Wikipedia loses nothing by omitting this biography" is not a good rationale for deleting a bio. I can also say "Wikipedia loses nothing by not omitting this biography". AdjustShift (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova and Krimpet. Especially in a borderline case like this, there is no compelling reason not to respect this person's good faith wishes, whether or not they technically have been sent through the precisely proper channel.  Xihr  23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete person of very marginal notability would like their article deleted, seems entirely reasonable to me. RMHED (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mainly per Durova and Krimpet. Seems reasonable to delete this article based on the request. I would also note that it has been suggested (is it policy, I've been away for a while?) that in cases of BLP AFDs being no consensus, the result defaults to delete, as opposed to keep George The Dragon (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable and I don't think that inconvenience is a reason to invoke WP:BLP Captain panda 00:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Delete The fact that it's not properly sourced after this time, and quite frankly, probably can't be sourced properly to pass notability (and for those saying that being a Playmate Pet of the Month makes her automatically notable, I'd advise to look at WP:BLP1E, makes this a delete to me, with or without the subject's request. And we're not invoking BLP because of inconvenience, we're invoking BLP because she's a living person, and thus falls under the policy, Captain. SirFozzie (talk)
  • strong delete Borderline notability and subject wishes it gone. I thought in cases of very little notability , this was the precedent. Mentioned in only 6 WP:RS sources, all penthouse itself, no other sources.[34] Things have been deleted with far more WP:RS in any case. Do we have every model that's ever been in penthouse, regardless of whether they got any other discussion in the press or other things, on here? "Pet of the month" is not notable, not out of all the years penthouse has been going. Maybe if it was 'pet of the year' and she'd been in a lot of other publications too. Sticky Parkin 00:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've heard two people now suggest that it is precedent to delete the article of someone with borderline notability who wishes it gone, yet I haven't seen any evidence of such past precedent. Can anyone link it? Trusilver 00:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)I've seen it before, but I won't remember unless I break my head (which I can't do at the moment). But if you think it's a sound policy, than go ahead and say so. Editors probably weren't any wiser at the old afd's. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiser? probably not, but they almost definitely went through some or most of the same types of discussions we are going through now to arrive at that decision. I'm just interested in what was said and the rationale of the conclusion. I'm reading up on the rather verbose AfD that George linked now. Trusilver 01:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through this, I get the sense that she's borderline notable. Not Paris Hilton notable, and not Me obscure, but borderline. Borderline notability cases go to the subjects wishes, barring any strong reason to not do so. This is a run of the mill centerfold model. Not Paris Hilton. She's asked. Therefore, per Durova and Krimpet and per my own understanding of BLP policy, Delete. Lar: t/c 01:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is borderline important/significant, not borderline Wikipedia notable since there is almost zero reliable sources discussing her life. The Ghits seem in part due to Angelina Jolie rather than Ginger Jolie. In any event, they don't represent indpendent reliable source material, but more likely blog puriant interest. This is a straight deletion for failing WP:N. -- Suntag ☼ 02:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are reasonable people, aren't we? The subject, who is very marginally notable, has asked nicely for us to remove it. I don't see the problem with us doing that. To be honest, I'd rather us not kick up a fuss about it. I echo Durova's reasons above. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Passes PORNBIO, BIO, and WP:N well beyond what I'd consider normal for an AfD'd article. Covered as a model in a major pornographic publication, and there are plenty of quality sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Beyond "I want this aggregate record of secondary coverage gone because I don't like it", there's no reason for this to be here, and I don't think we should be bending over backwards for that. Celarnor Talk to me 01:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Durova and Krimpet, largely. And per Jimmy Wales, "Wikipedia is not here to hurt people" - Alison ❤ 01:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alison/Jimbo/Krimpet/Durova. Subject has not appeared in a dead-tree-printed-encyclopedia, and (if she requests it) should be removed from ours. Giggy (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she's notable enough; furthermore, notability is derived directly from her (former) line of work, not the kind of incidental, unwanted attention that we sometimes see in controversial BLPs. Everyking (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. But it's not her former line of work. She's just taking her clothes of for Maxim rather than Penthouse. This is just publicist-driven image-polishing. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been mulling over this all afternoon have come to a conclusion. First, whether people like it or not, Wikipedia is a project that is based on rules. However, as the fifth pillar directly says, these rules are not firm. Wikipedia has long since stood against censorship. Hell, we have withstood untold numbers of special interests and the wrath of Allah to prevent censorship rearing its head in the project. Still... there is precedent for deleting the articles of marginally notable people who request it. And while the subject is notable, WP:PORNBIO is not a suicide pact either, it is only a guideline. My only remaining concern has to do with recreation of this article at a later time, but we can jump off that bridge should we ever get to it. For the time being, I'm going to change my position to delete. Trusilver 02:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:RS §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, articles like that are not a worthwhile addition to the sum of human knowledge. Nobody needs this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Pharmboy. Subject of the article is requesting deletion of verifiable content in order to control her public image for financial reasons. She's not in a different line of work, just a more lucrative tier of the sex worker industry. What next? In an article about a lawyer, should we remove verifiable citations to cases he/she lost, because they don't help earnins potential? The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please tone down your comments per WP:BLP? Thanks. George The Dragon (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? The subject of the article acknowledges being a sex worker, as Wikipedia (and most others) defines the term. The subject's request for deletion is based on her announcement that she's now posing in a classier tier of sex magazines. Big whoop. Note also the announcement on her website that she's not going to automatically refund the "membership" fees people paid to the sexually explicit website she shut down without warning, which to my mind qualifies her as a scam artist as well as a sex worker. Your mileage may vary. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So then the purpose of this article is to punish her for her sins? Kind of like a scarlet letter? Steve Dufour (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of the article is not to punish her. I've no problems with the porn stars. Porn stars don't kill anyone, they don't hurt anyone. Porn stars have a job and they do their job. Jolie did what she did in order to earn her living. I've no problem with that. But I have a problem with Jolie requesting her bio to be deleted from Wikipedia so that she could control her public image for financial reasons. Mara Carfagna, the Italian Minister for Equal Opportunity, was a former showgirl and she posed nude on several occasions. Tomorrow if she asks us to erase her past from Wikipedia, are we going to do that? No. AdjustShift (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. The subject of the article wants it deleted not because it is inaccurate, or unverified, or inappropriate, but because she's trying to make the transition from lower-tier "adult model" to higher-tier "adult model" and wants Wikipedia to include only the material her publicist thinks would advance her career. Are we going to review references to bad reviews from a musician's entry if his or her publicist asks? If there's a scarlet letter involved, Ginger Jolie put it on herself, and now wants Wikipedia to airbrush it out of the pictures she authorized when she made money off them. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I am advocating deletion, I am not saying we should cover-up any information. If she becomes notable in the future for whatever she does then the full details of her career should be mentioned in her article. Right now however she does not seem to be notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Except her website says NO SUCH THING, despite your repeated claims that it does - in fact it tells users with active memberships who to contact for account credit or refunds. This really seems like you're being disingenuous - you keep stating something that is verifiably false. Achromatic (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bilge. If she were honest, she'd simply refund the advance payments she'd taken for services she'd decided not to provide. It's very easy to do. She's got the payment records. All she has to do is issue the credits. That's what honest businesses do. That's wha the law requires, at a minimum. You're making apologies for sleazy disreputable business practices. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please stop arguing over the honesty issue? We have no reliable sources making any claims that she had been dishonest and original research that accuses living people of unethical or illegal business practices is really not a great idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no brainer, the fact that she was a Penthouse Pet makes her notable.--Michael WhiteT·C 15:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the qualifications to be a Penthouse Pet, besides being a reasonably attractive young woman and be willing to pose nude for publication? Steve Dufour (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Without some reason to believe that she was an unusual Penthouse Pet, WP:PORNBIO presumes she's notable. This does not relieve us of the burden of meeting the general WP:BIO guidelines, but the article is close enough as it stands to give it time. AfD is for articles that are unsourceable, not unsourced. gnfnrf (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Question I still keep thinking about this AfD and the ramification of deleting the article. The concerns that I still have are mostly concerning article recreation. What are we going to say to someone who recreates this article and then sees it put up for speedy deletion. "Sorry, we know that she's notable and all, but we are doing some pass blocking for her and since she doesn't want to have an article about her past, we decided that's cool with us." I really don't like the idea of an injunction against creating this article because eventually someone is going to come along and recreate it because she's notable (which she is) and then we are going to be left holding the bag saying..."yeah, we create articles for everyone that's REALLY notable and everyone that's SORT OF notable and doesn't mind us talking about them." Trusilver 17:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Durova and Krimpet, and it seems that there's a lot of bitterness amongst many of the Keep !votes, referring to her as a scam artist. Achromatic (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It reminds me a little of the Bible story about a mob which surrounded an adulterous woman, except that civilization has advanced and instead of shouting “Stone her!” they are shouting “Write a Wikipedia article about her!”  :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not exactly. I'm the only person referring to her as a scam artist, and that's because she flat-out says on her website that she's not refunding the payments fools people made in advance for access to the website, and that if they ask their credit card issuer for refunds, as the law allows, the company that handles her credit card billing will mess up their ability to use credit on line. That's a scam; I suppose calling her a "scam artist" is unfair to the more competent scam artists, but who cares about them. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, what? Her site says, and I quote: "If you have an active membership with GingerJolie.com, please contact [email protected] for an appropriate membership credit or refund.", and that doing a chargeback will piss CCbill off (and not unreasonably so - there's a refund mechanism in place, and chargebacks are intended to be used for fraudulent/deceptive behavior, not as a short circuit around the refund process). Achromatic (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit concerned with the BLP side of that epithet. If there has been any court ruling then the proper thing to do is refer to a judgment by its formal name. Otherwise it's simply a slur and ought to be refactored. DurovaCharge! 21:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm equally disheartened with a significant portion of the delete crowd that are (quite intentionally, I have little doubt) blowing off every single keep vote as "well, that person just wants to punish her". As I read it, they all are far more concerned with the censorship aspect of the issues. How about you all try something amazing and assume a little good faith. Sound like a good deal? Trusilver 21:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Trusilver, it is unsupported epithets such as scam artist that raise my concern. Certainly that wouldn't be acceptable as an unsourced assertion in article space, and I see no reason why Wikipedia space or talk space would be an exception. DurovaCharge! 02:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Durova, no many how many times you post the canard that my comments are "unsourced" or "unsupported," it won't make your statement any less false. It's supported by "Ginger's" own statement on her own website that she's not refunding the advance payments users made for access to the porn website she ran, and was the main subject of, until recently, and that her business affiliates will retailiate against peopl who make legitimate complaints to their credit card issuers. Given that you thought it was appropriate to post completely unsourced allegations of dishonesty from convicted felon Rick Ross in the deletion article you created at his request, aren't you being more than a little disingenuous here? The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Enchantress, your statements ARE unsourced. Her website states that people with memberships are to contact someone for a refund, in very clear terms. It says nothing about retaliation - I think that almost all merchants online or in the real world would have an issue with someone who used the chargeback process, which is for UNAUTHORIZED, fraudulent, deceptive transactions (and claiming to your bank that that transaction was one of those things, which can have a very real impact on the merchant), merely to step around the refund process. Achromatic (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Durova, my spouse's comments were entirely accurate, and yor response is completely uninformed. If you had bothered, for example, to read the Wikipedia chargeback article, or were familiar with the terms of your own credit card agreements, who would know that the chargeback remedy is available to consumers in any dispute, including failure to provide what has been cotracted for, for whatever reason. In most (probably all) US jurisdictions, simply cutting off services and not automatically providing refunds can be prosecuted (usually civilly, sometimes criminally) under laws prohibiting unfair trade practices. In situations like this, where the business was soliciting orders for long-terms memberships, right up to the point of terminations, impropriety is the standard inference. You really should reconsider your attitude toward those who disagree with you; these knee-jerk, inchoate displays of pique are both uncivil and self-corrosive. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:KEEPCOOL, please, Enchantress. Thank you, Achromatic, for your comment. Regarding courtesy BLPs in general I have a longstanding record of nominating and supporting deletion requests that meet certain objective criteria--criteria which I established well over a year ago precisely to avoid subjective decisions based upon WP:IDONTLIKEHIM or WP:ILIKEHIM. And if you want to retain the page under discussion here, suggest reconsidering the boldface etc.: an angry tone tends to give the impression that a neutral and policy-compliant biography would be difficult to maintain. DurovaCharge! 23:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neither Christian nor anti-porn, so your slur can't apply to me. I just want for a pretty white girl to be treated the same as a poor black man on Wikipedia. This is why we have policies, to insure all living BIOs are treated the same fair way. To question the motives of people who want to KEEP content when there isn't a single claim on inaccuracies, well, is rather in bad faith. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? What on earth would make you think that if this was an equally marginally notable poor black guy making the request that we wouldn't do the same thing? I know I would and I'm offended that you would think that of me. Mr.Z-man 23:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also offended. For the record, I am a Christian and generally anti-porn. I also think Ms Jolie is a sinner, just not an important enough sinner to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest removing the 'race card' from this hand and returning it to the deck. The world has all to many instances of actual bigotry. This isn't one of them. DurovaCharge! 03:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Would we delete OJ's article if he said he wanted that part of his past life behind me? She did what she did, passed the threshhold of notability, and therefore, shjould be kept.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 21:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look at the article's references again. Nothing there is a reliable secondary source which discusses her in a substantial way. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. This interview alone qualifies, as lukeisback.com is considered wp:rs for porn. See Luke Ford. And this isn't a new link, it was added in December 2007 in the creation of the article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh how right you are Wikipedia just wouldn't be the same without this article. It's exactly this kind of article that makes Wikipedia the invaluable resource it is, my those african children must be grateful for the knowledge this article imparts. How Britannica must be kicking themselves that they overlooked this individual, ha! those fools. RMHED (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the children in Africa will learn that those of us rich enough to own a computer believe that we should treat a pretty white girl no better or worse than a poor black man. That was the point I made above. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Oh how right you are Wikipedia just wouldn't be the same without this article" - Yes, it would be different as this article would no longer exist... "my those african children must be grateful for the knowledge this article imparts" - Who are "those african children"? and what is their relevance to this discussion? How Britannica must be kicking themselves that they overlooked this individual, ha! those fools. We could use this as ground for deletion on nearly all marginal deletions, this is just a stupid thing to say...90.216.139.52 (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't diss the poor african children it would make Jimmy sad, but seriously folks why so much effort to preserve an article about a woman who got her kit off for a magazine. Beyond that what has she done? If that is what counts for notability on Wikipedia then this 'encyclopedia' really is a joke. RMHED (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Everyking. Meets WP:BIO and given that she is in what amounts to essentially the same line of work currently there's no sane reason for any sort of courtesy deletion. The notion that courtesy deletion should apply to a notable individual because they are in a slightly different segment of the same industry is simply not reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova and Krimpet. Just because photographs of her have been in some adult magazines and has appeared in some adult movies (For all we know it could be a minor role) doesn't make her notable. Bidgee (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing specially notable here. Moondyne 01:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At most marginally notable if even that. She does want an article so we should delete. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 1

edit
I don't have an opinion about the reliability of lukeisback.com myself. However, I do think the Mr. Wales's opinion is something that could be considered in this AfD discussion. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There's no reasoning cited, just "I don't think it should be there anymore", and that doesn't really help the discussion any, regardless of who it comes from. Do you have something to add? Celarnor Talk to me 03:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done anything about the article's using lukeisback as a source. The article fails with it or without it. Besides it was already mentioned that porn models sometimes say untrue things about themselves in the course of their work, so what value does an interview on a porn-related site have? Steve Dufour (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant? Politicians say untrue things about themselves in the course of their work, so what value does an interview on CNN have? We're not here to aggregate truth; we're here to aggregate coverage. It's not our place to determine what truth is; all we can do is look at sources that are generally considered reliable in their field, and I haven't seen anything to indicate that this particular one isn't. Someone's unsourced and unexplained opinion doesn't change that. Celarnor Talk to me 03:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there was a little known right (or left) wing political figure and the only secondary source for his article was an interview of him on a right (or left) wing website that wouldn't say much for his notability. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't place any greater weight on Jimbo's opinion than I do anyone else's here. Jimbo has never represented himself as the all powerful leader of Wikipedia (and rightly so), and to be honest, there are quite a few editors on here whose opinion I value far greater than his. However, I think it would be wise to consider what he says about lukeisback as a source. For some mind-boggling reason, lukeisback has gotten some kind of precedent for being a notable source for porn articles. While in any other article, a source like this would be laughed right out of an AfD discussion. While this is not the place to set new policy on how we cite pornographic articles (that just sounds wrong...), we should at least be keeping it in mind. Trusilver 04:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Steve Dufour. Luke Ford runs a gossip blog about porn stars, for cryin' out loud; it is totally inappropriate as a reliable source. If it is appropriate, then what isn't?  Xihr  07:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An inappropriate source would be a gossip blog that hadn't received attention and was known for being as such. Celarnor Talk to me 07:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. Would it be correct to say that "Ginger Jolie" is not the subject's actual birth name, but a pseudonym adopted by her for her work in the erotic world? Is she working outside the erotic world under a name other than "Ginger Jolie"? And if so, how could an article about "Ginger Jolie" affect her in her non-porn life as long as it didn't mention her other name? I think this should be clarified. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answering my own questions, it appears that Jolie is now using a different name for non-porn work. However, I suppose that some people might be able to associate Jolie with her other name by recognizing her picture in Ginger Jolie. If there is more to the story, other editors can supply the additional information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has tried to remove another user name which had asked for deletion of the article in 2007 and claimed to be the subject. Briefly during the AfD the article contained a claim that Ginger Jolie was working under another name in 2007. The source was a site containing the other name and some images, but apparently no mention of the name Ginger Jolie. Similar claims could easily be added in the future - and stay if a reliable source is found. Adding claims based on comparing images would of course be original research. But if the subject or her PR person is worried that the article will lead to published real or alleged connections between "Ginger Jolie" and other names then it seems to be with good reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She has been on the help desk asking for the article to be removed, introducing herself under her other name and saying she wants to move on with her life. She was only in her teens or early twenties when she did this stuff. Is it going to be recorded for posterity, or be at the top of google, when the only pseudo-WP:RS about it is 6 mentions by Penthouse itself? [35] Sticky Parkin 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, several new citations have been added, and there has always been more sources than Penthouse. Even Hustler is cited, as well as her video career and another interview. The article is much better sourced than before this AFD started. PHARMBOY (TALK) 14:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per krimpet. naerii 15:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I was not aware that we were using Luke Ford blogs as sources for WP:BLP articles. Shouldn't these all be removed from all the Wikipedia articles straight away? JBsupreme (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Surely the subject's concern for her new line of work is amply addressed by ensuring the article doesn't mention her 'other' professional name unless her pseudonyms become linked in RS of course. Unless there is information which is false and/or unsourced (in which case it gets removed per the usual BLP approach) I don't see that the core of the article itself - which rests on her being a Pet, which is notable IMHO - needs to go. MadScot (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment She was also an AVN awards nominee in 2006 for "Best Tease Performance" so it was hardly a low profile career she had. MadScot (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
second comment I've seen at least one ref online that she appeared in Playboy Special Editions under her [redacted] new professional name. If that's so - will be searching - it does kind of spoil the whole point of the deletion request? MadScot (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Additional - two 2004 Playboy SEs have a model under the [redacted] name, as does one in 2003. Also a Playboy video released in 2003.[reply]
Perhaps this would be better spent on addressing the issues of before the AfD rather than digging up information on a borderline-notable porn star's old moniker that she would prefer be laid to rest? Wikipedia is supposed to care about the anonymity of the authors, and respect the good-faith requests of people in the WP:BLP policy updates. How does this information do anyone any good?  Xihr  05:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't do any good, unless people want to bring up the "Oh noes poor woman she wants to change her life" bit as a reason for keeping it, which they have; its a point that should be refuted if it can be; I mean, even in the warped world where we delete subjects on reasonable requests, why should we do that if she doesn't seem interested in changing? Celarnor Talk to me 07:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that is precisely the point. The subject is marginally notable, so whether the article is included or not makes no difference whatsoever to the overall quality of Wikipedia. This person is in good faith asking for the entry to be removed; her precise reasoning is not relevant. Modern BLP-related policies allow this as long as it doesn't degrade the quality of the encyclopedia (and should it come to that she could always get a laywer to write a C&D notice, which would surely cause it to happen in a case like this). Digging up dirt on her or her past and current activities -- the latter of which, by the way, completely defeating the purpose of those policies -- seems completely antithetical to these consensus decisions: namely, if it's not a big deal, and she wants it to go away, it should go away. I fail to see the grand purpose that is served by keeping this utterly marginal article, other than sticking it to someone who'd rather not have it be stuck to (if you'll forgive the pun) -- especially since it is irrelevant to the quality of the encyclopedia. It seems completely like common sense to me. Who cares, so why keep it?  Xihr  08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLP quotes Actually, WP:BLP says Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. even when requested by the subject of the article. It doesn't have special allowances for requests, nor a policy on your faux quoted it is irrelevant to the quality of the encyclopedia (a google search shows that phrase isn't used on any page on wikipedia). Please show us where this "modern" policy is, so we can all be enlightened. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject passes WP:PORNBIO due not only to Pet of the Month but also being nominated for, at present count, four other awards which come from a notable award granting organization. That basically sums up my Keep vote. Now to comment: No matter how many times Durova pulls out the "she's more mature now" card out, that doesn't apply. For one, she was past the age of consent during that time. That age isn't vague. It's a big solid line. It's not like when some parents don't let their kids watch horror movies because they don't feel their child is ready. She was of legal age to make her own decisions. And secondly, I haven't seen anything from either the subject or her management that leads me to believe that she considers her past "dirty" or lacking in respect. It's a career move. If she would like to move on in her life and change direction (albeit not that drastic of a change from adult modeling to modeling for Maxim), that's fine. But that's not a valid reason for deletion. She's not seeking privacy here since she's continuing a career in the public spotlight as a model. Dismas|(talk) 09:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right; that's not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is that our policy allows closing admins to consider the wishes of the subject in deciding whether to keep marginally notable biographies. DurovaCharge! 17:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the recently found award nominations have now pushed her clear of being borderline notable. 217.134.73.4 (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment to expand on what the anon said above. She apparently has 4 AVN awards which are about the highest awards there are in her industry. That's pretty notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • query Are you sure about the awards. When I searched I found one nomination in 2006, but no awards actually listed by AVN (though I did see here referred to as 'AVN award winning' I couldn't confirm an award). (I still think she passes notability, but don't want people basing this on a mistaken identification of awards). MadScot (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK Sorry, didn't see those when I looked; only a 25% google success rate, pretty poor. MadScot (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take what an article says on face value, anyone can add anything and we are not a reliable source.:) Her awards/nominations have not been considered major enough to be mentioned in any reliable source- come to mention it, no reliable sources have considered her worth mentioning apart from penthouse itself- who are not really a secondary or independent source for someone who was one of their own models at the time. Sticky Parkin 17:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell from sources she got 4 AVN nominations but didn't win any of them. The 3 in 2006 were for the same film. The list [36] of 2006 AVN nominations is 43 pages with around 1400 nominations in around 95 categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Fish Market

edit
Welcome to the Fish Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtape with little media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Schwartz

edit
Aaron Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor Honey And Thyme (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 07:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wingard

edit
Adam Wingard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability in question: I don't think making several short films and having two web interviews automatically makes a person notable. Clubmarx (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have done a bit of cleanup. Will look to expand and source. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:29, 11 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) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O K Research

edit
O K Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I speedied this as an A7 but the creator contacted me to point out some sources. Most are in Russian so I am listing here as the benefit of the doubt. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the claim: those have a funny way of being taken for blatant advertising or PR work on someone's part. We in wiki have a list of market research firms by country, do we not? The british and american lists are quite huge, but the rest of the world is sorely lacking. The claim is simple: either major players in major countries should have articles and be on the list, or the list ought to get binned as well. This seems to be a step towards addressing the issue. Or do we seriously not consider it strange that only ***all of 9 countries*** have their own market research firms (and the Hong Kong one is a regional office of a Dutch-American company anyway)?! Oh, and dear exclusionists, if you are going to go on about it not being nearly as huge as something like Nielsen - I implore you to join the "Let's delete Andorra" club. Aadieu (talk) 22:06, 12 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) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Vision: An American Anthem

edit
World Vision: An American Anthem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is pretty much no reliable sourcing on which a verifiable article about this (one time) future TV series could be based. The two sources available from Forbes[37] and The New York Times[38] give very little (if any) information about the proposed show itself but briefly talk about a possible law suit that it could have caused. A Google search yields less than 50 results [39],[40] with no additional reliable sources. Neither the NBC[41] nor the Eurovision Song Contest[42] websites contain any mention of the show. Unless more reliable sourcing is shown to be available I don't think it will be possible to write an article which meets two of Wikipedia's core inclusion criteria, verifiability and no original research. Guest9999 (talk) 20:23, 11 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) 00:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 08:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pier Solar and the Great Architects

edit
Pier Solar and the Great Architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable indie game. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:00, 11 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) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Please keep because) I just rewrote the article. I removed unverified claims and blatant advertisement and added references to reliable sources, including a scan of a recent article published in the British RetroGamer magazine. DCEvoCE (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm overlooking something, the closest to a reliable source that discusses the article subject at any significant length is the scan of RetroGamer #49. Am I overlooking something? The tiny blurb (essentially two screenshots) from "an unknown Japanese magazine" doesn't seem terribly significant. D. Brodale (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya only get on keep !vote, ya know. --Izno (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm happy with the Retro Gamer article (although, do piersolar.com have permission from Imagine Publishing to publicly display this scan?) But I'm not conviced with the reliability of Sega-16.com or destructoid.com - and certainly not the use of forums and blogs such as Tavern RPG or seganerds.com. I'll lean towards a keep if an additional reliable source can be found.
    - What makes Sega-16.com unreliable? It's the biggest Mega Drive site, has 50 000 unique visitors per month, interviews with former CEOs of Sega and loads of other content. If Sega-16 isn't reliable, no other Sega source is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.149.171 (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC) — 94.191.149.171 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I don´t understand the fuss. Calling big websites like Sega-16, Sega Universe or destructoid unreliable seems random. Wikipedia does cover homebrew games and releases in small numbers. In the case of Pier Solar the technological achievements as well as it being the first game of this scale being released on the system in a decade make it absolutely noteable.

The game is to be released in December; then there will be no doubt at all about it´s noteability left, seeing how other "Indie"-games such as Beggar Prince or Last Hope have their Wikipedia-entries. So please do not delete it now, if you do the article will just have to be rewritten again once the game is shipped and the reviews are published. --108 Stars (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did a quick google search for pier solar sega and came up with 700.000 hits. There are links from all over the world, but most seem to be German, English, French and Spanish. The game seems to have been covered by almost every single video game related website, forum and blog on the planet. That's certainly impressive for a game developed by some guys in their spare time. - It's even more impressive if you keep in mind, that the working title until January 2008 was "Tavern RPG", and even notable promotion such as the first trailer and this Sega-16.com Interview initially were released under that name (but that apparently changed later to reflect the game's final name). DCEvoCE (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Izno/MuZemike: I insist that the sudden fuss about this article is unbased. Of course other articles on similar games are absolutely worth mentioning here. Just dismissing some sources without reasoning is acting random. As stated before, quick searches via Google bring you tons of results, the media response has been rather big for a small game like this.

Even if you have doubt for whatever reason it is contra-productive to delete the article right now since the release date is so close and the whole article would have to be rewritten again then. There is no crystal ball needed to see that, being in the pre-ordering phase with a set release date tells it apart from some vapoware. So we have a yet unreleased videogame with a set release date in the near future, an article in the Retro Gamer magazine as well as several features on a large website such as Sega-16. And we have similar released games that have Wikipedia-entries. This should at least be sufficient to justify keeping this article for now to update it soon with upcoming review links. --108 Stars (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • @D. Brodale and Marasmusine: The links on the article were used to source the information provided, not all of them can be considered third-party media coverage proving its notability. There is a small paragraph dedicated to third-party media coverage of the game, which includes the Retro Gamer Interview and the article in an unknown Japanese magazine, but also two Portuguese interviews of Brazilian project leader Tulio Adriano: 1 2. During another google search I stumbled across these articles about the game: computerandvideogames.com, rpgsquare.de, retrowelt.com, onlinewelten.com, and seganerds.com. One problem I ran into was that although almost every video game related site on the planet seems to have coverage of the game, in many cases this was reduced to the sites' message boards. I assume that will change once the game is released. The only place to host a review of the public beta/demo was Sega-16.com. - I will try to use some of these links to improve the article as soon as time permits. DCEvoCE (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MuZemike: Regarding the game's notability: I am well aware of the fact that lots of hits at google doesn't verify its notability, especially as the majority of links lead to message boards, and not published articles. I merely used google to prove that the game is being discussed at all. What in my opinion does make this game notable is that it's a unique approach of creating a game: It's a video game for a console for which not a single new game has been developed in a decade, and for which producing the required cartridge media alone is quite an achievement in itself. As such, the existence of the game likely won't be covered nor discussed outside of certain circles, so there likely won't be studies nor newspaper or TV coverage, but that certainly would apply to a new Barbie game for Windows Vista as well. DCEvoCE (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Izno: No, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but what we are discussing here is an article to a game that already is notable - it's gets its media coverage simply for being developed at all. That is one thing that separates this game from others: If there were hundreds of games in development while the same amount would be released each month, it probably would make each game less notable, but if it's the only one of its kind in more than a decade, and it then gets so much attention throughout the web, then that's what makes it notable. DCEvoCE (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DCEvoCE, by "unreliable" I'm referring to our guideline on WP:Reliable sources: "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I haven't heard of sega-16.com or destructoid, but if the concensus amongst members of the VG project here is that they fulfill this guideline, then that's good enough for me. I await feedback on this. CVG is a good source, but the news story isn't particularly substantial. I'm still leaning towards a keep. Marasmusine (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as severely doubtful. A new Sega MegaDrive/Genesis game being released after this long would have made it into far more media than the limited ones mentioned. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kmuch Co.,Ltd.

edit
Kmuch Co.,Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable animal feed company in Thailand. Does not satisfy any WP:CORP criterion. Fewer than 10 Google hits. Prod removed without comment by an IP. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 16:19, 11 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) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Daddy

edit
Your Daddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Even if it was a single, it was not a popular one nor a notable one. Google searches confirm non notability. There are a lot of returns because the term Prussian Blue will turn up quite a few results. The song, however, does not turn up the necessary sources. Also, the sources given on the article are from the Prussian Blue blog and a site that was describing the custody battle. That fails WP:RS. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 17:07, 11 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, treelo radda 00:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most significant change

edit
Most significant change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional article/advert on original research riddled with inappropriate or vanity external links. Descriptions are vague and geared to click external links to non-notable researcher's theses. Boffob (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Needs an intro and the good references that are hidden in here need better link targets and inlining their cites. As a topic though, it seems notable and supported by independent references. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 11 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, treelo radda 00:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article claims that two people are promoting a theory, does seem a bit promotional as well. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pharmboy. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dont know how or where else to make this comment (please advise me at [email protected]) but, the deletion decision is uninformed.The MSC method has been in use since the mid-1990s, it is used by a large number of aid agencies around the world, especially NGOs, and there is a dedicated email list of 900 people who share information about its use. There have also been articles about it published in academic journals on evaluation in the USA, Australia and the UK. If the style of the article needs improvement, then let it be improved —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rckjdavies (talk • contribs) 10:13, 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. unsourced Spartaz Humbug! 05:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatifilius Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache

edit
Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatifilius Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable WWI captain, whose dubious claim to fame is having a long name. I can't find it now but I know we have an article listing unusual names, unless this too has been deleted for bordering on trivial original research. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:29, 11 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) 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern -schplenden -schlitter -crasscrenbon -fried -digger -dangle -dungle -burstein -von -knacker -thrasher -apple -banger -horowitz -ticolensic -grander -knotty -spelltinkle -grandlich -grumblemeyer -spelterwasser -kürstlich -himbleeisen -bahnwagen -gutenabend -bitte -eine -nürnburger -bratwustle -gerspurten -mit -zweimache -luber -hundsfut -gumberaber -shönendanker -kalbsfleisch -mittler -raucher von Hautkopft of Ulm is not on that list. MuZemike (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've looked into this a bit more, and it seems that the subject is definitely famous for the misconception (found in sources like older Guinness Books of Records, eg 1974) that the last six words of his name were a single surname. The claim may be false, but it's notably false. I'm sticking with 'keep'. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Lyons

edit
Elena Lyons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Had a few roles but lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 12:20, 11 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, treelo radda 00:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Narcos de S.L.P

edit
Los Narcos de S.L.P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:31, 6 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) 00:27, 11 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) 00:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rostislaw Wygranienko

edit
Rostislaw Wygranienko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established through reliable sources. Wizardman 04:27, 6 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) 00:18, 11 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) 00:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has been tagged as unreferenced for over a year, so notability cannot be established. Unless there are some sources that show why the article is notable, it should be deleted.--Terrillja (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge discussions, if desired, can continue on the article's talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Mall

edit
Skyline Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Utterly unremarkable office building mall. Is any of it still in operation, other than the Target they were putting in last I heard? —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:15, 11 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) 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_16&oldid=1116879579"