Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 31

< August 30	September 1 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Destroyer

No reason for notability of this application given. Google gives ~470 hits ([1]) but some are about a different program, and practically all the others are just links to various download sites. I don't see any substantial secondary coverage. Black Kite 23:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Can confirm that it was well known a few years back. On par with Icy Tower. Ottre (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Strong Keep this program was quite popular a few years ago, so is probably notable enough.--UltraMagnus (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, but improve and source. Some quick google-news searching turns up this mention in a Dutch newspaper from 2003. --Delirium (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete software comes and goes - let it die WikiScrubber (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I feel that software known to a lot of more people can be considered notable without coverage from media sources. However, sources are of course necessary for all articles and some proof of notability will eventually be needed. It should be kept for the time being, as editors are clearly quite aware of the program and there is no deadline. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - source above establishes notability; it was well-known a few years ago. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's Up! Magazine

The article has no reliable sources to establish the notability of a small music magazine. Harro5 23:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, couldn't find anything in several searches. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 06:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep looks interesting, maybe will be important in the future we must give them a chance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youpi-youpi (talk • contribs) 03:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click house

An unreferenced stub that appears to be original research about a sub-genre of music. The article says this name may not be recognised in the 'mainstream', and finishes "It very closely relates to a form of electronic music called Microhouse. Some would argue it is indistinguishable." Harro5 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. It's not real and it's made up. Besides, it's another name for microhouse. Noble12345 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a few sources. passing mention, very passing mention, somewhat more coverage in the Austin American-Statesmen but hidden behind an access fee, passing mention identifying click house as german, etc. I looked at several pages of news search results, most of which weren't about the genre but maybe 10 were. The common thread was that they all just name-drop the genre as some hip techno thing but provide no useful coverage. The one exception is the Austin American-Statesmen article, except all I can see of it is "he won a Grammy in Sweden, and he's one of the pioneers of the 'click' house genre, which applies the jittery..." maybe if we could see the full article that would establish some notability. But this doesn't seem to be the typical made-up-genre Wikipedia article, there's a good 10 years of sources using this term at least in passing. Nevertheless, keeping the article requires more than passing mentions. --Rividian (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling you it's fake. It's another name for Microhouse. This thing should be deleted. Delete it now! Noble12345 (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly because of the lack of even marginally citeable sources on the subject. It does appear to be a real term, but a handful of passing mentions aren't enough to write an article about it, which leaves us with a choice between deleting the article or keeping an article with original research or misinformation. No prejudice to recreation if sources do exist. --Delirium (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, how about some of you ask someone who actually works in the music feild and knows about su-genres. Click House exists. Definitly. This sub-genre is not made up. Instead of deleting, how about some reaserch be done about it, and a better page be written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGIOMann (talk • contribs) 02:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really have a dog in this race, but a little history may explain the nomination. User:Noble12345 nominated it for speedy deletion as "no context". User:Noble12345 is now blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Fclass (who is known to target electronic music articles). I asked the deleting admin, User:Harro5, to restore it, since the deletion was clearly out of process. They then nominated it for AfD, inadvertently and unwittingly proxying for the disruptive user. I think this nom should probably be withdrawn. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it exists find some RSs. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footbo

An article that does not establish WP:WEB notability. The only reliable source listed in a TechCrunch page mentioning the future launch of the website; others are personal blogs or soccer fan sites. Harro5 22:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - PROD was contested by the author before I had a chance to second it. :-) "Footbo’s Beta site was launched in May 2008 …" seems like not enough time to WP:V its WP:N ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.117.122 (talk · contribs) _{01:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete, not notable, at least not yet. Mariano(t/c) 07:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Neutral, various nontrivial reviews, and notability is on the rise. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've looked extensively since I deleted this almost a month ago. The site has simply not attracted enough interest. A single article on launch, and a small follow up, is all there is of independence. Of the links provided by WikiScrubber, the first (soccerlens) is a press release by Footbo (check the wording and tone) and the second is on a blog, by a software engineer—neither relaible sources - Peripitus (Talk) 13:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - changing my vote to neutral. Thanks for checking. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Footbo is an informative article for football (soccer) fans. This article has been Wikified now and has a good number of external references. Please don't delete this article. Techsplash (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Footbo is gaining much traction in the football community and the articles has been Wikified with some very relavant external links. There should be no real reason in deleting the article. Compare e.g. wit the article on Goal.com which is also a football community. The contributors to Footbo's content are some of the best known football journalists in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manolito18 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton Davies

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —fr33kman (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found on {{prod}} pages and felt it should be dealt with here rather than under PROD rules as article does technically assert how subject is notable. Whether or not he is notable needs discussion. I say no because he's not actually played in a game yet but has been signed and is on the roster. Probably would be an article on him at some point, but now may not be appropriate. Comments? fr33kman (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If he gets into a first team league game or FA Cup or something, then recreate. For now, he is not notable. GauchoDude (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the original PRODer. Clearly fails notability at WP:ATHLETE, recreate if and when he makes an appearance in a fully-professional league or competition. --Jimbo^[online] 08:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate as and when he plays professional game. Quentin X (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate as and when...--ClubOranje^Talk 12:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Drujko

Not notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails all criteria under WP:BIO. Wronkiew (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, WP:V etc. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. No Google or Google News hits from reliable sources—nearly all are derived from WP. The author of this article has added mentions of the person to David O'Hara and Andrew Divoff, which should probably be removed if the article is deleted. Deor (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 21:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Negri

Football who has never played in a fully professional league (latest info is that he may get a place in the reserve team of a club at the 10th level in England!), thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but as usual, it was removed by an IP without explanation. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 100000000% non-notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, a very long way from having played at the highest level. Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No discussion necessary. GauchoDude (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE by a long shot. --Jimbo^[online] 08:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quentin X (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, fails WP:ATHLETE. —Borgarde^talk 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator fails WP:ATHLETE and lacks non-trivial coverage. RFerreira (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 17:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Goes Pop!

Delete - does not meet standards of notability for WP:MUSIC. Claims to notability include winning prizes from "Upstate New York Songwriting Contest" and second place in the "St. John Fisher Patriotism Contest". Google search for "Sean Goes Pop" gives 35 unique results. ... discospinster _talk 20:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is wholly nonnotable. Also a blatant COI, and if you look on the article's discussion page it's obvious that canvassing has occurred off the site as users rallied there to 'save' the article. The notable blue links in the article are of bands/people that have influenced the musician, but have no reciprocal relationship to him. Themfromspace (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Themfromspace. It's essentially self-promotion. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Sean Goes Delete! for failing notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' A case of Someone mistaking Wikipedia as a social networking service. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per any of the above. Sorry Sean, not yet. tomasz. 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI and nonnotable. Templarion1 (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surprised it's not speedied; a 17-year-old writing about himself isn't really Wikipedia material, regardless of the content. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jpgordon, if you are referring to the specific "blatant advertising" criteria for speedy deletion, I do not believe this article meets it. The language of the article does not suggest, to me, a Sean Goes Pop!-is-the-greatest-type article. However, I do not believe this article meets WP:MUSIC, as I have found not found multiple, reliable, independent, and secondary sources about Sean Goes Pop! Maybe he will be notable enough for an article in the future, but I have determined that he is not notable enough atm. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made this page. Just delete it. JEdgarFreeman, I believe you have found the editor who gave us the un-fair "promotional" banners, when there was no promotion on the site whatsoever. But eitherway, it is ok that this page is deleted. It was only created because fans on his myspace page demanded one. I helped create the page. Somewhat of a bad idea eh? Sorry if this "UPSETS" any of you, although it seems that its nothing to get horribly "UPSET" over. PaulGIOMann (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted (G11/A7) as spam / non-notable. Salted as well. Black Kite 23:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tutor4u

non-notable company or service provider; content continually reintroduced (might suggest a bit of protection?) A bot has also tagged it as a blatant copyvio of http://tutor4u.me.uk/aboutus.html. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 20:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why should it be deleted? Please inform us --ZeejaysUK (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)ZLJAY[reply]
Delete, probably speedy. Not sure that it's a copyvio (it uses quotes but rest only comes back to Wikipedia from a Google search), but the creator is ZeejaysUK, the owners of Tutor4u are called Zeejays, and the article reads like an advertisement. Also no assertion of notability. Esteffect (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's been speedied once; the same guy reintroduced the text. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 21:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since you ask, the article and/or its subject fall foul of:

Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Special_note:_advertising_and_promotion: "Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy."
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources."
Wikipedia:Copyright violations: "If all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement [...] the page will normally need to be deleted."
Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies."

Richard Pinch (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jerry Bruckheimer. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Legacy (2002)

Pilot TV show that never was (on a network that hardly was). Completely fails WP:N, completely lacks multiple independent reliable sources (probably because of the lack of any significance or notability).

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jerry Bruckheimer if it isn't already mentioned in his article; as a notable TV and film producer his unbroadcast projects become notable within the confines of his biographical article and list of works. Otherwise if this was never broadcast then it isn't notable enough for an article on its own. HOWEVER, if it was broadcast (the IMDb source gives no date) then it becomes a television movie broadcast on a national network, which would satisfy WP:N, in which case change my "vote" to weak keep on that grounds. However I can't find any indication this was ever broadcast, so my merge suggestion will probably stand. 23skidoo (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inheritable -- even if the producer is notable, each of his child works must have "multiple independent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources" to warrant their own articles. There is zero chance of that with a pilot TV show that never aired (and even if it had, we'd need more than a date on IMDB to warrant its own article). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as above. WP is not IMDB. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Web 2.0 Toolbar

This seems to be a non-notable piece of software. The article is sourced to blogs, and Google turns up many more; plus I found one review on a download site [2]; but I don't think that suffices to warrant an article. Note that the article was created by User:Bostondave, while the software's creator is called David and apparently located near Boston [3]. PROD was contested. B. Wolterding (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I had deprodded it, and invite comments from the more knowledgable. DGG (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a couple of brief rs mentions here and while I know that likely isn't enough to establish notability, I think there are more. I think the reason for the significant blog coverage is that this is a tool written for blog use, I agree that there needs to be other coverage, however. One of the issues I'm coming up with in trying to find more is that there is a lot of discussion of the concept of Web 2.0 toolbars and their use, which makes it harder to find discussion of this particular tool with that name. Still looking... TravellingCari 16:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability under WP:COMP. Software is rarely notable, unless (extremely) widely in mainstream use.--HidariMigi (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely lacking in notability; productspam. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Product spam. Non-notable. No reliable sources. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fighter X

Prod removed by author. Non-notable artist, per WP:MUSIC. No independent coverage--sources are myspace, bulletin boards, self-generated (not WP:RS). justinfr (talk/contribs) 20:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Label is owned by another nn artist, Kids Get Hit by Buses, which I've nominated for speedy deletion. Definitely not one that meets WP:MUSIC's criterion of "...one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." justinfr (talk/contribs) 20:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe Fighter X falls in criteria #7 under "musicians and ensembles" in WP:Music. "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". As far as I see, Fighter X is the most prominent representative of breakcore, and probably of chiptunes in the greater Seattle area. I will search for references to support this claim if needed. Shadowthief0 (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you can insert any references to this effect that would be helpful. All claims must be verifiable in reliable sources to be included. Cheers... justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright well, I've found a short interview with him ^[1], and a few more articles mentioning the recent street performance at the Penny Arcade Expo ^[2] ^[3] (though few people seem to have known who he is), but nothing to the effect that he is a particularly prominent music producer in any genre or any local scene. I suppose for now, he's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Shadowthief0 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2/3 sources are WP:SPS. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada devanga chettiar

Contested prod. No context, no lead section. It is unclear whether this article is about a living person, a deity, a village, or something else. Delete as WP:NONSENSE. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it seems to be about a Hindu sub-caste called the Devangas, their origin myth, marriage customs and festivals. But it should go because (a) it is unsourced original research and (b) we already have an article about them at Devanga. JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or alternately if this is a plausible alternative title for the sub-caste, redirect to Devanga. --Delirium (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Dumb Ass

PROD contested by author, total lack of WP:RS for WP:V ... violatesWP:CRYSTAL. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) _{19:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any sources. Might be a hoax; if not, then it's purely speculation.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 20:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Completely lacking in content other than a name and "in the future". / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Alas, it's not CSD#A7 or any other speedy deletable category, and "The Rulz" say that if a PROD is contested, you've gotta conduct an AfD to get rid of it. <Sigh!> Happy Editing! — 72.75.117.122 (talk · contribs) _{01:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its just speculation right now. JBsupreme (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rowlands

There's no indication in the article that it passes WP:PROF Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was featured in the Matrix Ultimate edition as a speaker on the Philosophy of the Matrix - does this not count as notable? Rory 2nd September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.132.230 (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors, which, I think, should be enough to confer notability. And Everything I Know I Learned From TV received at least a few reviews. Zagalejo^^^ 20:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF, in my opinion. Has written a substantial number of books that are widely held by academic libraries according to the Worldcat data. For "Body language: representation in action" (MIT press, 3 editions) 406 libraries in the U.S.[4], for "The nature of consciousness" (Cambridge University Press, 6 editions) 454 libraries in the U.S.[5] (marked as "internet resource" but appears to be a book since has an ISBN number; still this could account for higher holding numbers); "The body in mind understanding cognitive processes" (Cambridge University Press, 6 editions) 772 libraries in the U.S.[6] (also marked as "internet resources); "The philosopher at the end of the universe : philosophy explained through science fiction films" (4 editions) 331 libraries in the U.S.[7]; "Animal rights : a philosophical defence" (5 editions) 341 libraries in the U.S.[8]; "The environmental crisis : understanding the value of nature" 282 libraries in the U.S.[9]; and so on (there are several more books). There are substantial numbers, especially for academic books and holdings in academic libraries (I looked through these and the libraries listed there are mostly university and college libraries). There are quite a few in-depth reviews of his work in academic journals and publications, e.g. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. I looked up some of these in JSTOR. While they were not breathtakenly enthusiastic, they were in-depth analytical and generally positive reviews of his work. There is also some coverage in conventional media. An in-depth interview with him at MonstersandCritics.com[27] (cited in the article and comes up in googlenews search), in Independent[28], another in Independent[29], and a few others, e.g.[30][31]. GoogleBooks search results are substantial[32], and even GoogleScholar (which is usually terrible with citations in humanities) produces fairly substantial results[33]. While there are no big prizes or academic awards here, I think he passes criterion 1 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep on the basis of the information above. Now, given that this information was all in the accessible free web in the most obvious of places, this was a careless nomination. We do not delete for lack of information in the article, we delete for not being notable. It is a total waste of everyone's time to nominate without checking first. I know its easier to nominate for deletion than to fix, but trying to delete fixable articles does not help the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not careless really, just part of the cleanup of Dan Schneider's vanity spam. Good catch, but good faith not really in doubt I'd say. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One can be careless in perfect good faith. I extend to my colleagues here the assumption that they are doing what they do in the interest of the encyclopedia, rather than to mess things up or be unfair or pursue personal agendas--that's the AGF. But as for being careless, or ignorant, I am careless or ignorant myself quite often enough that I assume other well-intentioned people will sometimes be so also. GF refers to the intention. I hope to be told when I am careless, and I intend to tell others also. If I didn't extend GF to them, I wouldn't bother. In cleaning up a bunch of spam or other junk, it is important to keep in mind that some of the stuff that looks like spam may be justifiable, and check each one. DGG (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz: Starrin & Stylin'

Also nominating the following related pages:

These movies seem to all be non-notable because I can't find any reliable sources that shows the movies' notability (except one review). Schuym1 (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(fixed template Bvlax2005 (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 19:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wide releases by a major studio (Fox in this case) are notable, especially when they relate to a major franchise, which Bratz is. If precedent exists for combining such made-for-DVD motion pictures into a single article, then go for it. 23skidoo (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the guidelines, The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. It has not received two full length reviews. Being released by a major studio (unless it isn't a major film producing country) and being part of a franchise does not make a movie notable (according to Wikipedia guidelines). Schuym1 (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, and with respects, that is an incorrect interpretation. Your "quote" is from a subsection of WP:NF, from part of a list that follows this statement: "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist", which simply means that if it had "reviews by two or more nationally known critics", then then the WP:RS would "likely" exist. It does not madate that it must have such to quaify, only that having such would be an indicator that sources were likely available... and this as an encouragement for editors to be diligent in their searches for sources. Per the reviews I found and added to each nominated article(as listed below), the Bratz films pass WP:N, WP:NF, WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:RS. Thank you for bringing these forward so those issues could be properly addressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the guidelines WP:GNG, WP:NF, WP:N... and thorough google searches that show the entire Bratz series notable. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Just a matter of looking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That only proves that the live action movie is notable. Schuym1 (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What search parameter did you use to check notability? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: For myself, I used [34] parameter, and I found much more than one single review. Here are a few...
      - DVDmg review
      - DVDverdict review
      - Entertainment.kaboose review
      - Digitallyobsessed review
      - NYTimes review
      - epinions review
        And there are many more. I have added these to article Bratz: Starrin & Stylin'. I believe I have addressed the Nom's concern. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just added these to Bratz Genie Magic
    - Just added one to Bratz Forever Diamondz. There is difficulty because of the many popular reviews of the video game by the same name.
      - DS.ign review
    - Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And just added these to the last on the nom's list, Bratz Kidz: Sleep-Over Adventure:
  - However it is granted that some of these reviews are mere blurbs, and not extensive in-depth insight and commentary... but after all, these are direct-to-dvd videos targeted toward pre-teen girls... not a major feature. I do believe I have addressed the nom's concern that there was only one review out there. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Deleted and salted. jj137 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XPanel

Promotional article, twice speedied G11, twice recreated, listed here so that it can be salted. The creator has also been reported at WP:UAA. Delete and salt. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability and no references. Creating editor appears to have a conflict of interest. Ros0709 (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is the current article pretty much the exact same thing now as it was when it was deleted, or was an attempt made to correct the problem? Green caterpillar (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen the second version, which I tagged myself. The third version, which you see listed here, is exactly the same apart from the cleanup templates. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, then I guess delete and create-protect. Green caterpillar (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Obvious COI and nonnotable. Salt to prevent another unneeded creation. Themfromspace (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XPanel should be deleted and salted as an advert for a non-notable product. Oh, and I suppose the article should be deleted also, for the same reasons. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 22:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lianne Morgan

Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Not even worth a redirect to Spice Girls, as she's hardly the equivelant of the Fifth Beatle. Dalejenkins | 19:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - why not just redirect this to Spice Girls or something? Somebody obviously thought she was notable at the time this article was created, and she was a one-time member of the group before it became well-known. If someone wants to enter her name into a search, let them find the article about the Spice Girls, where she should be mentioned - a sentence or two there should cover it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that the above user is a frequent editor of the article in question. Dalejenkins | 19:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I've edited it three times, mostly to revert vandalism, and the last of my edits was in June. Hardly a frequent contributor. However, it's probably worth mentioning that the article's creator appears to have auditioned for the group at one stage and created several articles apparently relating to fellow auditionees.[35] [36] A possible conflict of interest issue perhaps. Having said that, I still think it's probably worth having a redirect. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does that nullify his argument? Zagalejo^^^ 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. I think I was just a bit put out by Dalejenkins's note after my initial comments yesterday and wanted to demonstrate my impartiality. While looking through the page's history, I discovered who had created it and I felt it was probably worth noting it on this page because there could be a conflict of interest. I wondered whether the people concerned (including Ms Morgan herself) were friends of this person. I don't believe Lianne Morgan is notable enough for her own article, but redirects are always a useful thing to have, especially as she was a member of the group. So I see no reason not to redirect this to Spice Girls. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear, I was responding to Dalejenkins. I'm fine with a redirect. Zagalejo^^^ 18:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Apologies for the mix up. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It all hinges on the Daily Mail article to prove notability. I don't think that is good enough on its own, and Google has nothing else in RS that I can see, so I vote delete. I have no objection to a redirect being made. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Redirect She actually has been the subject of several newspaper articles [37], so a case could be made to keep an independent article. But I could live with just a redirect to Spice Girls. Zagalejo^^^ 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not been the subject of non-trivial published works (a vanity article in the Daily Mail is trivial), the Spice Girls may have had a chartered hit; she hasn't, she has not had a "gold record", no albums, not an award winner, has not placed in a major music competition, has not performed for notable media or placed on a rotation and has not been broadcast for half-an-hour or more on national radio/television. Therefore, she fails the WP:MUSIC test. What is she supposedly notable for - not getting in the Spice Girls? Sounds like one event to me (if not doing something can be classified as an event). ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 22:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spice_Girls#Beginning. Not notable enough for her own article per WP:BIO per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as she is mildly notable. What harm does it do? Paul Largo (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just foind the following links [38] and [39]. She apparently had a minor chart hit a few years before joining the Spice Girls. Paul Largo (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardonnez-moi

Delete non-notable film per WP:NOTFILM Mayalld (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ghits for "Pardonnez-moi" "Maïwenn Le Besco": 159 in English, 1660 in French, 3050 over all Ed "unreachable by rational discourse" Fitzgerald^{(t / c)} 00:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pascal Greggory is a very well-known contemporary French actor. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition, per IMDB, the film was nominated for two Cesar Awards, the main film award in France. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Girolamo Savonarola and Ed Fitzgerald. Notable film (for the Cesar Awards, see fr:Pardonnez-moi). Europe22 (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Giro and Ed. Ghits have nothing to do with notabiity, only the popularity of a particular search parameter. A Cesar Award on the other hand.... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The award nominations do it. JBsupreme (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le bal des actrices

Delete non notable film per WP:NFF unreleased films are only notable if the production itself is in some way notable, and there is no evidence in this case that the production is notable. Mayalld (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the director is clearly notable, and the film stars Charlotte Rampling, an internationally acknowledged film actress. Hard to see how this fails notability, frankly. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer to policy (WP:NFF), which is explicit that unreleased films are NOT notable for these reasons. Future films are only notable if there is something notable about the production, and no such notability is shown. Mayalld (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF is a very short section which does NOT explicity say what you say it explicitly says. Can you please explain, with quotations from NFF, what you mean? (Also, FWIW, it isn't policy.) AndyJones (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, guideline! The first sentence of the second paragraph is the relevant part Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Mayalld (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that's exactly what Girolamo is saying, surely: notable director famous star = notable movie. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but your suggestion that NFF explicitly rebuts that argument is just plain wrong. In view of the comments which have been made here, can you explain why you think this film is not notable? "No evidence that it is" doesn't carry much weight. AndyJones (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is that the standard for future films is higher. The standard is NOT that the film will be notable when released, but that the process of making the film must be in some way notable. Mayalld (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Production" in this instance must refer to the project itself – "Johnny Depp appeared in Stanley Kubrick's production of 'With Six You Get Eggroll'" – not to the process of making the film. It would be extremely rare that, in advance of a film's release, enough would be known about the process of making a particular film to make it notable on that account. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it would be rare, but thatit, I believe the intention. Broadly speaking, per WP:CRYSTAL we don't do articles about future events. Now, if a film production is noteworthy, because (say) the director has come out of retirement, or the film brings together two huge stars who have never worked together, or employs new technology etc. etc. it becomes notable. The fact that upon release it is likely to be notable doesn't cut it in my book. Mayalld (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides Charlotte Rampling and Pascal Greggory, the film stars Julie Depardieu, the daughter of Gerard Depardieu. The director, Maïwenn Le Besco, was nominated for a Cesar Award, the main film awards in France, for "Best First Film". Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NF. Article needs major expansion, but film is getting international coverage. The notability is there. Google search brings up premiere.fr, MSN (UK) Complete cast list, unifrance.org, Screenrush (UK) Production year 2007, cinemotions.com, Allcine (FR) Complete cast/production info, Dailymotion film's trailer, dvdtoile.com, and more. Wish I could read French. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Note (rapper)

Procedural nomination in response to re-PROD of previously PROD/de-PROD'd article. The most recent PROD nominator stated "fails WP:MUSIC", while the first PROD nominator stated simply "notability"; the remover of the first PROD stated "charting artist meets WP:MUSIC". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This artist has yet to receive non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I remember the original PROD last fall, my initial concerns are still here. Marlith (Talk) 19:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unverifiable, uses only primary souces that apparently don't support the claims made here (COI maybe?). / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to fail to see why this is germane. There are no primary sources provided! Chubbles (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets notability as per WP:MUSIC#C2 for a charting album, billboard.com. Doesn't mean the article doesn't need a rewrite though. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the charting album criterion of WP:MUSIC, but yeah, needs improvement. --Delirium (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure that somehow being involved with a charting album (a sign of popularity, not notability) is a free pass from our WP:BLP policy. Is it? JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Blaxthos. Xihr 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author Keep I fail to see how this article fails WP:BLP. There are no COI concerns here; I wrote the article. No primary sources are cited whatsoever; Blaxthos;s concerns are illegitimate. The charting albums are verified with reliable sources, and substantiate his notability per WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Blaxthos. I don't feel there is a COI issue at stake, but the lack of note from reliable third party publications is an overriding problem here. RFerreira (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument essentially amounts to: "The article does not pass WP:MUSIC bullet 1, and so should be deleted". I see no reason to disregard the other points of the guideline here. Chubbles (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're the author, can you demonstrate non-trivial coverage from multiple third party publications? I would be happy to reconsider but for now my !vote from last Thursday still stands. JBsupreme (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being as the artist made the Billboard charts, we have definitive evidence of his having reached a level of significance - that's what WP:MUSIC is supposed to measure. MIRS are therefore supplementary, rather than necessary. For reasons that are unclear, some editors have, of late, decided that hip-hop should not be held to WP:MUSIC and should instead be judged only according to its first bullet, which is just WP:BIO. (A similar result was reached in T-Rock's AfD/DRV's, which I regard as astoundingly misguided.) Again, WP:MUSIC is here for good reason, and I don't see any compelling reason to ignore it. His most recent album received an Allmusic review (which is cited in the article), and that's eight years down the line from his 1999 charting album. Chubbles (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charting satisfies criteria #2 of WP:MUSIC. Only ONE of the categories needs to be satisfied. The link provided by Esradekan clearly shows that the charting album was not by the boy band, removing any question that assigning that info to the rapper was OR. Lack of other sources is not a reason to delete, they may be a reason to rewrite but I can't see where that would be needed. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete nn WikiScrubber (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He charts, so we keep him. I don't how its non-notable. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 21:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout teams

Article fails to meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines because there are no reliable third-party sources that can verify the contents of this article. Randomran (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be just game guide/trivial content. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Completely original research. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fairly clear violation of WP:VGSCOPE. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Closed as per WP:SNOWBALL - Its obvious which way this is going. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevich

Delete non notable film (only awards from MAJOR film festivals satisfy WP:NOTFILM Mayalld (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although not an incredibly important film it is nevertheless notable as a film by a very wellknown director, according to the criteria the film has received more than two full-length reviews by nationally known critics (J. Hoberman and Jonathan Rosenbaum), see Rotten Tomatoes and the film was screened at the 2000 Toronto International Film Festival. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BlueSalo Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a film by a very important and innovative documentary filmmaker about another very important and innovative filmmaker. Pinkville (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with an additional recommendation to watch La Jetee as "punishment". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only fair. ;~) Pinkville (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- any Chris Marker film is notable. Staecker (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -you want to delete a movie that's an homage to Andrei Tarkovsky by Chris Marker. Why?--Termer (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its somewhat annoying that someone wants to delete this. Why? This is a wonderful film that is more than notable, and I agree with everyone here that says "keep." —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGIOMann (talk • contribs) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. See additional closing rationale on talk page. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Elite Four members

Article fails to meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines because there are no reliable third-party sources that can verify the contents of this article. None are in the article, and other sources fail to meet their requirements for reliability or independence. Randomran (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment from nominator: I still haven't seen any truly independent reliable sources covering this topic, and zero sources have been added to the article. But I would support a merge or redirect if there were no consensus to delete. In the longer run, if someone did actually find appropriate sources to create a notable article, I would have no prejudice against re-creating the article. Randomran (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please prove this article is notable and verifiable, instead of citing WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Randomran (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That there is no consensus to delete tells me it is notable or when the group is covered in published books. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I find your logic a bit flawed. There is no consensus to keep, either, that tells me it's not notable. Plus, your number one search result is a Quantum Physics book, which I'm fairly certain isn't going to help. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List_of_Pokemon_characters --UltraMagnus (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Pokemon characters omitting excessive detail. I don't see notability for an independent article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no notability for an independent article? Also, I don't think this goes into excessive detail. Each character in the article has only a brief paragraph or two—it doesn't seem excessive to me. SunDragon34 (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into List of Pokemon characters. Individual article not good, merge in list better. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not good? SunDragon34 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect into List of Pokemon characters per Zero Kitsune. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Pokémon characters - falls well within the scope of the other article, and has no justification to be it's own --T-rex 15:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no justification for it to be its own article? SunDragon34 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting how the delete argument vary. First the arguments say it isn't notable because there are no usable sources. GRC produced a few dozen sources, some of which are actually independent of the franchise. By the notability criterion based on the existence of source that was invoked, they are thus notable. So then the argument shifts to they not being notable anyway. But there is no such concept in Wikipedia as intrinsic non-notability. The only thing that such an argument means, is that one doesn't want it to be in Wikipedia, which is just saying I dont like it. I defy anyone to say why these characters are intrinsically non-notable even when there are sources? True, they are not the least bit important to me, and I would be just as satisfied if they never existed. What does that have to do with Wikipedia? My personal interests are not the standard. It would be a much smaller Wikipedia if that were the standard, and probably not of much use to anyone but me. I'm here to write about the things that interest m, and I rather resent having to spend time defending the things of interest to other people that are just as important. It should at this point be common knowledge that a large part of the world considers these characters as notable. Do we need an article on each? Yes, if we intend to be a 21st century general encyclopedia. But if we don't have enough people willing to write them well, then we have to make do with the combination articles. Like this. The question of how or whether to merge it to a general list does not belong here. It seems to me that one article for all of them would be too long for many readers. And Ningauble, what exactly is "excessive detail"? How does that affect deletion anyway. Since we are not paper, we can and should have as much detail as the sources support. If we could write 5000 words on each character, why not? As long as someone other than me does it. DGG (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious: which one of the links in Le Roi's search is a decent source on, well, anything? The only things that aren't game guides or fictional works are a student-newspaper article on Pokémon used as an example of a student newspaper article in a book on media education, someone's self-published personal journal, and, um, this, which I'm pretty sure is not an excerpt from Modified Maxwell Equations in Quantum Electrodynamics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First, I apologize for the redlink. I forgot what I was doing. By "excessive" in-world detail I mean in relation to the larger coverage of a fictional work. I take my guidance from WP:PLOT, which I interpret to mean that the discussion of real-world reception, impact, and significance should be given substantially greater coverage than the description of in-world elements. Not everyone agrees with this interpretation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response DGG's initial comment, I'd like to point out (for the sake of argument) that, as of this comment, no one has voted for delete, simply merge and redirect, a method by which no vital information would be lost. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: That makes sense. I agree; we can let this one go. It should be merged and redirected to the main list of characters. Thanks for the elaboration, Ningauble and Jelly Soup. SunDragon34 (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Condense and then figure out what to do with what remains (i.e. make an editorial decision and not a policy decision). Infoboxen don't really belong in a list of nineteen and there's at least some material that can quickly be cut due to WP:VGSCOPE (example from the first entry: "In Lorelei's case all of her Pokémon are boosted by several levels..."). On a side note, I'd like to point interested editors to the RFC on Notability which is in part meant to address articles like these. Nifboy (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I can see where these merge opinions are coming from, since there's already a section dedicated to them in the list. Nifboy (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Pokemon characters. We are not here to question WP:N nor the general notability guideline; please place the appropriate grievances on the respective talk pages or at WP:WHINE. Unless someone can find verifiable, third-party sources that cover details past what is trivially covered in the Pokemon list, then a merge seems to make the most sense. MuZemike (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Pokémon characters, with some of the content going into game articles. These are really minor characters in the scheme of things, and all of Le Roi's "sources" aren't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Pokémon characters, in my opinion the elite four arent notable to have there own article. Salavat (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, enough content to warrant a separate article. Everyking (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable? So you have some sources we can use to write this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, as a matter of fact I do: [40] Le Roi already linked that, but maybe it bears repeating. Everyking (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, crap, so nothing but strategy guides and fiction. Oh well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What, you don't think that counts? Everyking (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Counts for what? Notability isn't really at issue here, so I'm just looking for sources that offer some sort of insight other than "Use fire types to defeat the steel trainer!" Game guides offer only the most superficial commentary, so they're pretty lousy for actually trying to write an article. I had hoped that your claim that this was notable was based on the idea that "notable" means a subject with sufficient appropriate references to write an article and not just "Well, I think it's important," because these articles have been unsourced for years now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial coverage in published sources is plenty good enough for me. Everyking (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enough for you, but our guidelines require that the source be reliable and independent of the subject too. A guidebook is authorized by the creator, and not independent. Randomran (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can argue that they aren't reliable, and I don't think the fact that a company authorizes a game guide prevents us from saying that it's an independent source. Furthermore, not all game guides are authorized. Everyking (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial enough for what? We are not facing an alternative between keep and delete (note the lack of delete opinions beyond the nom), but instead an alternative between a decent article and a redirect. Let's can the same old WP:N-isn't-satisfied nuh-uh-it-is crap and try and discuss actually writing an article. Now, do you have any idea how we could find sources on this that aren't "Use fire types to defeat the steel trainer"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it would be nice to have other kinds of sources, I feel that what we have already is sufficient to justify the article's existence. Everyking (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree. Strategy guides are usually not published independently of the video game, no notability cannot be asserted merely from a strategy guide. Notability also requires more than just indicating the mere existence of the article; please read WP:GNG. MuZemike (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you have nothing to help. Rats. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:Article size is already >40k so merge is probably not sensible. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the moot point of WP:SIZE, I change to delete for the same rationale I have stated above. MuZemike (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. due to few reliable sources and lack of evidence of passing WP:MUSIC. Also written promotionally. Band is now defunct. However, I am going to userfy this to my own space and try to rewrite it if I can find enough material - there does appear to be *some* RS out there. Black Kite 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interlock (band)

Non-notable band. This article has been lying around for several months. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS (plus it's written like the back of the band's CD). / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article is horribly written, but releases on Anticulture is probably enough to pass WP:MUSIC. A quick google search reveals press in Kerrang! and Terrorizer amongst others; I could probably find more if pressed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete maybe notable enough but promotional and unsourced WikiScrubber (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The label isn't any major indie label, as can be deducted from their website. I haven't found anything close to significant coverage in independent reliable sources either. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabella's Landing Marina

Delete nn business, and per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a directory Mayalld (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I had previously attempted to have the article speedy deleted under G11 (blatant advertising). Basement12 (T.C) 19:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One pier with max 20 feet (6.1 m) vessel lengths? This is as nn as it gets. Perhaps I should write an article about my house? Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only passing RS coverage. Current content is copyvio (this should be no surprise by now) from Washington State Parks. Perhaps a significant enough landmark in Gig Harbor, Washington to rate a brief mention, but the current guidebook-style article has got to go. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters of Crash Bandicoot

Article fails to meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines because there are no reliable third-party sources that can verify the contents of this article. (I previously tagged the article for speedy deletion, but it was disputed.) Randomran (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The most notable characters in the article have appeared in eight video games at the most. We just have to make a team effort to expand the article and assert its notability. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Common sense kicking in. I have a better idea. How about we move this back to List of Crash Bandicoot characters and include sections on the major characters (with redirects to their respective sections in Major characters of Crash Bandicoot included, of course). The List of Mario series characters follows this same format and it appears to be doing alright. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps merge to Crash Bandicoot, but there is no inherent notability otherwise. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to List of Crash Bandicoot characters per Cat's Tuxedo. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Cat's Tuxedo--UltraMagnus (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep minor character lists are a good thing for the organization of material. I've no objection to the merge proposed by Cat's Tuxedo, but don't think it is needed. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit. --Yowuza ZX Wolfie 11:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I cannot find any verifiable, third-party sources verifying any of this. MuZemike (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nutshell of WP:V is "This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.". Notice that 3rd party isn't there. If you wanted WP:N, that's more than fair of course. I do think that minor character lists are a fine organizational scheme for an overall notable subject as long as the material is verifiable (and it is here). Hobit (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to look at WP:PROVEIT which is a subsection of our verifiability policy, stating that "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Randomran (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have known that eh? Thanks for pointing it out. In any case, there seem to be plenty of reliable 3rd party sources for each of these characters. The articles just aren't primarily focused on the character, making WP:N still an issue, but third party sources exist (for example [41] and [42]. Hobit (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I definitely see some coverage of other more notable characters in there. But I'm having trouble parsing out any information on these "minor characters" in those two sources. Also, the first source looks to be a reprint of a press release, which makes it insufficiently independent. Randomran (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, could you explain the difference between WP:N and WP:V? I read WP:V as saying we shouldn't have articles on things that don't have third-party RS that _can_ be cited. But WP:V allows us to use primary sources as sources. So we have a RS (more than one: as only part of that is a press release and I didn't spend that long looking for other sources) and we have all the info in primary sources. The material is verifiable. Hobit (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the two, combined, is that we don't allow articles written entirely from primary sources, and that a reliable third party source with only a trivial mention (e.g.: "X exists") would be gaming the system. You'd need to verify at least a few important facts in a reliable third party source in order to have have "significant" coverage. WP:N says "significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". But again, I'm not sure I saw mention of the minor characters in the source you dug up. Not trying to be difficult, but I might have missed it. Do you have a quote? Randomran (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest portion of the difference is that WP:V applies to content while WP:N applies to articles. WP:V may stop us from making some specific claim which would be contentious. WP:N would stop us from writing on a topic without some coverage of that topic in a substantive (WP:N says "significant") way. Basically, WP:V is the fundamental tenet that makes wikipedia legitimate (since none of us can be trusted as an authority on anything, as we edit anon). WP:N is sort of a a functional guideline. It allows us to keep article topic selection free from Original research and (hopefully) helps us keep the distribution of articles NPOV in a meaningful sense. Because it is a functional guideline it is difficult to articulate--it doesn't follow from first principles like WP:CON or WP:V and it isn't a unique solution to the problem. WP:N also runs into some problems (like with this AfD) when the reasons for creation of a new article are stylistic, rather than editorial. We didn't spin out Minor characters of Crash Bandicoot because we felt that it was a notionally different topic from Crash Bandicoot but because the Crash Bandicoot article wouldn't hold a full list of characters. In that case, we find ourselves at a loss. the original topic (what WP:N purports to govern) is still notable, but this section of it (what would previously NOT been subject to WP:N) is not. Even FURTHER, fictional topics generate more trouble because coverage of fictional works is nested and hierarchical. Elements of fiction (characters) tend to almost never be covered outside of the work of fiction itself. By contrast, real life relationships are much more free form. We would expect that a discussion of Calculus would mention Newton (as he kinda-sorta created it) but most applications of calc. and even some stories about its derivation would not cover Newton exclusively. As such, it is harder to assign "real life" articles parents and daughters. Fictional elements, however, naturally fit into parent/daughter relationships. So while we couldn't say that "Company X is notable because sector A (which company X is a part of) is notable" but it seems more logical to say "Crash Bandicoot is notable, why wouldn't a list of characters in it be notable?" That's an artifact of this particular second best solution. In my mind, notability is similar to patent protection. Without patents, the incentive to invent new things would be small because those inventions couldn't be protected from copying (which is easy once the original "insight" is done). As a "second best" solution, the government grants a temporary monopoly to the patent holder in exchange for a promise that the invention be released into the public domain after a certain time. In this case the government can't get every inventor to invent without some incentive and its tools are blunt. Wikipedia can't force every item to be sourced from a third party (as that would gut many legit fiction and business articles). We also can't allow articles to be created for any reason. We have a particular solution to the problem in WP:N, but it is by no means unique. Does that huge wall of text help answer your question? Protonk (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bildungsroman_examples_(post-1930)

The "Pre-1930" version of this list has already been deleted. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bildungsroman examples (pre-1930)‎ noit (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't really think a list of examples is encyclopedic, either list them all or don't have the list, just giving "examples" is highly subjective. Note that this article seems to have the same problem as the pre-1930 list; referencing is few and far between and this sort of claim really needs to be referenced to be meaningful. --Rividian (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list, unencyclopedic, no clear membership criteria (OR). JJL (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "List of examples" is inherently unencyclopedic for a stand-alone list. Not even if the classification were referenced and it could be verified that the list is representative of the class. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully, for the reasons I gave at the AfD linked in the nomination. AndyJones (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a case where the information would be much better presented as a category than a list.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Fabrictramp. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 21:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Drag Wellington

New Zealand drag contest. All refs in google news seem to be local and possibly selfpub. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. not particularly interesting outside of the Wellington GLBT community, and not actually all that interesting from within. at any rate, this is a community event, not an item of outstanding notability. plan 8 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per plan 8, and we've both sat through enough Wellington drag shows to know what we're talking about. --Helenalex (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 22:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Gibson (footballer)

Young footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but removed because he has played for Scotland U19. However, consensus has long been that, with the exception of the Olympics, youth caps do not confer notability. Article has already been deleted via prod once for same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE. TerriersFan (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Textbook failure of WP:ATHLETE. Maybe he'll have an article some time in the near future. Calor (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Basement12 (T.C) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE badly. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he plays in a fully pro league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 08:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate as and when he plays a professional game. Quentin X (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate as and when...--ClubOranje^Talk 12:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Isidro

Young footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Originally prodded, but removed by IP without explanation. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When and if he plays and qualifies under WP:ATHLETE, WP:FOOTYN then he can be re-entered. -- Alexf⁴² 17:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delte: per nom. Alexf hit the nail on the head. Not now, some time in the future, likely. Calor (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate if he plays in a notable game. GauchoDude (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he plays in a fully-pro game. --Jimbo^[online] 08:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate as and when he plays a professional game. Quentin X (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elexia Hilton

This article has been deleted a number of times on this title and at Elexia hilton as hoax/vandalism but the person does seem to exist. Blatant self-promotion. Is she/he notable? — RHaworth (Talk

Delete WP:CSD#G4. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment G4 is only applicable if the article has previosuly been deleted by a discussion (i.e. an AfD). deletion logs suggest that it's only ever been speedied in the past so G4 does not apply - hence why I removed the G4 speedy request. I'm also have my doubts whether the current article is 'substantially identical to the deleted version'. If someone knows of a previous AfD discussion, where the article was very similar to the current one (but presumbly under a different name), then I suggest they re-add the speedy tag with a link to the appropiate AfD. Dpmuk (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a hoax, I think this TG exists but I don't think it related to Paris Hilton. No reliable source. --Qwerty1234 (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently Elexia is a porn star (gathered from one of the external links) and doesn't satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete messy article, appears nn WikiScrubber (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Movie

this cites no source apart from a just-issued magazine, and I can find no reliable confirmation. Nothing in IMDb. Fails WP:NFF. ^{(Argument from JohnCD on removed prod)} This entry also fails WP:CRYSTAL. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing about it on the "news" page of the magazine's website. There is nothing in IMDb and nothing relevant in Google. Possible hoax? Anyway, lacks the reliable source to confirm that shooting has started required by WP:NFF. 17:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)JohnCD (talk)
Delete per above: no verification that shooting has started. Cliff smith ^talk 17:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending additional sources. Total Film is a major magazine and the fact it was "just issued" is an invalid rationale for disqualifying it as a source. There is no time limit on Wikipedia except for BLP issues (and I just deleted a section from the article that was completely unsourced and BLP-violating). I suggest closing this for a few weeks to allow other sources to come forward. If none do, then perhaps this can be revisted. 23skidoo (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per above --99.175.75.9 (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article should be done away with until proper sources can be found. The "references" section is pure speculation at most, and even without that there isn't enough info out right now for this to have an article. Bloodbath 87 (talk) 012:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have requested semi-protection as the article is being heavily vandalised and the AfD template removed by a number of IPs. JohnCD (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~without prejudice.~~ An incredible amout of opionionated activity from anonymous IP's for an article that is essentially a one-source single sentence about a rumoured future film. With respects to User:Blehfu, no problem it being returned when it has better sourcing to show that filming has actually commenced or finished per WP:NFF and WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Struck the "without prejudice" as hoax is suspected. Google Search 1 found nothing. Google Google searh 2 brought up a couple blog entries based upon the wiki article. Cannot find a WP:V that even speculates about the film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only source this page cites is Total Film magazine, to which I happen to be a subscriber. I am holding the September edition in my hand now and it says nothing of the sorts on page 67, in fact page 67 is the title page for a feature on British Celebrities. Plus, it would be unlikely for such small film news to be featured that far into the magazine as it tends to put all of it's news about announced and upcoming films at the beginning of the magazine.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.60.42 (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC) (comment copied here from article's talk page - JohnCD (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and considering that the Total Film reference is "misinterpreted" or plain wrong, according to 86.21.60.42. —97198 (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, I Don't Love You Anymore

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stop, I Don't Love You Anymore

Contested PROD. Non notable future single. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Please note that It Was You also has an article as the second single off that album. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was missing a reference list but now the source listed contains a cover and a preview of the music video, therefore proving it is going to be a single, therefore It Was You needs deleting. Breathe again (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both for failing notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. They haven't charted, no awards, haven't been covered. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This single is definitely going to be released, and it is going to chart upon release, so why all the fuss? References and cover art have been added, and it is in no way an obscure release.HugoMYSKIN (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have recently updated the page by putting infomation on about the music video of the single, i see no point on deleting it if its an actual confirmed single, people should focus on deleting It Was You, ChillaxNOW (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as article is complete adn someone will proabbly just have to recreated it again soon WikiScrubber (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DriveImage XML

I think it should have stayed. No need to delete just because it's not much used. Software detailed not notable; just another commercial product for creating images of disks Cupids wings (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, besides the obvious notability problems (which for me was not a problem in itself IF this was a excellent product), this program offers nothing more than products that alredy exist, (like Acronis True Image, for example) it does not have a Live CD, and it is not cross-platform... SF007 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your opinion on the product's quality, as well as your narrow expectation of the product's features are of absolutely no concern to the deletion process. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just said that because if this product was clearly better than the alternatives I think it's inclusion on wikipedia should be considered (and I would vote "Keep"), regarding the notability policy, since policy are not rigid rules and are only to make a better wikipedia and to protect it from spam. (but nevermind, this is not the case...) SF007 (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment My point precisely... you base your decisions to keep or delete upon personal opinion of the product, which is completely inappropriate and absolutely no help to Wikipedia. While deletion requires discussion either way and there is little way you can sway the decision with your comments, it doesn't help the process if you come in and discuss things so highly off topic, please try to consider the article based upon policy in the future, thanks. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point was that the notability "policy" is not really a policy, it's "just" a guideline... but I know what you mean... SF007 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope, i'm pretty sure you were commenting on the quality of the software and won't just retract it. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Apart from what appears to be a procedural article in pcmag.com, no notable mention of the products use, or reviews that can verify it as a widely adopted application. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software isn't notable unless its usage is widespread. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sources are light, but exist [43]. Most are in-passing, but in at least most of those cases it is listed by news articles as a solid free alternative. Couldn't find a single good source, but 20 poor-ish ones are enough to show notability IMO Hobit (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable software. a quick WWW search for it shows relativly few hits, and those that do exist just seem to be adverts for it.
Weak Delete as software comes and goes but there are a few non-trivial (if dated) blurbs here and there. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Vargas-Bernal

Newly-created article. There is a possible WP:COI with the article's creator, many of whose edits have been to promote Vargas-Bernal, but in the absence of a clear violation of WP:AUTO the more important reason for the nomination is that the subject looks unlikely to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- very sparse academic record, single-digit citation figures for articles, no other evidence of notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:PROF. No evidence of significant citability of his work. Very little in GoogleScholar[44], GoogleBooks[45], nothing at all in WebofScience and nothing in MathSciNet. No significant academic awards or honors beyond the grad student level, according to the June 2008 CV[46]. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:PROF per Nsk92. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I flagged this article yesterday, and it still lacks sufficient WP:RS to meet WP:PROF notability criteria ... it's already been delete twice as WP:CSD#A7, so it probably should be salted this time ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.117.122 (talk · contribs) _{19:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete 7 papers in GS, none with more than one or two citations. They are conference proceeds, which would be OK in this subject for major conferences, but the lack of citations shows lack of significance in the profession--together with the results from WoS--which, by the by, is unreliable in inclusion of even important conferences in most subjects, even where such proceedings are really significant.DGG (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator does not meet inclusion criteria for professors and the like. RFerreira (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Due to the lack of coverage in reliable sources for verification and notability Davewild (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony D'Costa

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tony D'Costa

I can't quite tell whether or not this is a hoax, but a Google search does not turn up any sources that would verify this person's existence or the information in the article. I do not think that it is unreasonable to assume that a person with the qualities listed in the article would have at least a few English Google hits; I am willing to reconsider the nomination if sources are provided, but I would have to see how trivial the coverage is and if it establishes proper notability. Cheers, CP 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no sources to provide verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eluchil404 (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a mention in [47]. Still fails WP:VERIFY and WP:MUSIC. Jll (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above WikiScrubber (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P. M. Pu

Unnotable mathemitician who fails WP:BIO. Article is purely the original research/creation of its creator, who copy/pasted it from his own webpage. Wikipedia is not a mirror nor is it a personal web host for people to archive their website or publish their own research papers. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is not original research because it's based on other sources (the book by Katz). That also shows that Pu is discussed by third-party sources, hence he appears to be notable. The fact that the article was published before on another website is not a reason to delete the article; see for instance the many articles we copied from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Brittanica is a reliable source whose information can at least be trusted to be well resourced and reliable. Some unknown guy's personal website does none of the above. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources listed do not establish subject's notability. Content appears to be copied directly. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your definition of notability? Wikipedia:Notability says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The book by Katz is published by the American Mathematical Society which I think is definitely a reliable source for mathematics books. It has a subsection on Pu, hence significant coverage. And I know of no connection between Katz and Pu, except that they work in the same area. So I'd say that the source does establish notability by the very definition of notability. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the notability requirements for academics, he has not been established as notable. Simply being published isn't enough, most professors are published in some capacity. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's a pioneer of systolic geometry, says the book. He has proved Pu's inequality for the real projective plane. That's enough to satisfy criterion 1 (his research has made a significant impact). Marcel Berger wrote an article Du côté de chez Pu [48]. Tamrazov writes in the introduction of Moduli and extremal metrics in twisted Riemannian manifolds: "we consider problems on the Riemann Möbius string, including the well-known Pu problem" (translation from MR 1489677, my emphasis).

That needs to be explicitly stated in the introduction of the article with in-text citations. I can't be expected to know that. Wikipedia pages are supposed to be written so that someone with no background in that subject could understand what its talking about. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't even googled his name, and yet you're urging deletion. This is a problem. If you think something is non-notable, ask for cleanup first. You will delete (and probably already have) a great many good articles by carelessly voting to delete without any knowledge of the subject at hand. - McCart42 (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand your second sentence; what does "most professors are published" mean? Could you perhaps reformulate this? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common way of staying that they have works that have been published, like a paper or a book. It doesn't literally mean that the person was published, but that their works were published. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - No notability, dubious claims of fact, speculation, unsourced, take your pick... / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ for the moment, leaning towards weak keep. It is possible that the subject passes WP:PROF and perhaps WP:BIO. I'd like to look up Katz' book mentioned in the article but the libraries in the U.S. are closed today and tomorrow so I'll try do do that on Tuesday. The subject did not publish a lot (MathSciNet lists 9 articles by him), but his research appears to be influential. The article "Some inequalities in certain nonorientable Riemannian manifolds" from 1952 is still fairly frequently cited in papers on systolic geometry. MathSciNet shows 27 citations of this article since 1998, which for a paper published in 1952 is pretty good. GoogleScholar gives 89 citations for this paper[49]. The term "Pu's inequality" (see Pu's inequality for the real projective plane) appears to be legit and is still used in the literature, although not widely (see [50][51]). There is also a memorial article about him in 1990, Lu, Wen Duan; Tang, Zhi Yuan; Xiong, Hua Xin; Bai, Su Hua. In memory of Bao Ming Pu. Advances in Mathematics (China), vol. 19 (1990), no. 2, 239-240. Not a whole lot to go by here but this memorial article together with Katz' book might make it pass WP:BIO, albeit weakly. There is another old paper of Pu and Liu that appears to be influential, Fuzzy topology, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS, 1980 (published in two parts in two consecuitive issues of the journal). WebOfScience gives 229 citations for part 1 of this paper and 69 citations for part 2, which is quite high for a pure math paper. This paper is explicitly mentioned in 50 reviews in Mathematical Reviews, including some recent ones. Again, this is fairly impressive for a pure math paper from 30 years ago and shows that the paper is still relevant. Still, there is not a whole lot here to go on and I am not sure about this one. Nsk92 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak Keep. I looked up Katz' book (ref no 1 in the article). In chapter 2, on page 19 of the book, there is a brief biographical sketch of Pu that roughly corresponds to the biographical data given in the first two sections (Thesis under Loewner and Mainland) in the article. The book also explicitly characterizes Pu's 1952 paper as "seminal". Pu's inequality is listed in the index as appearing in the book multiple times (at least 20). In view of this, together with evidence of high citability of the fuzzy topology paper and because there was a special biographical article published about Pu in Advances in Mathematics (China), I think this passes WP:PROF, even if the case is not very strong. Nsk92 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per what Nsk92 has found. Highly referenced papers in math are notability in my opinion Hobit (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jitse Nielsen and Nsk92's research. Few but still highly cited and influential works. RS's on him - memorial article and Katz book mean we can write a decent article on an influential researcher - how could this not improve the encyclopedia?John Z (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for your input. I have noticed generally that a nomination for deletion generates interest in an article, so my particular thanks to Collectonian for a helpful nomination. The mathematician in question published a paper in '52 which is a seminal article for the field of systolic geometry. The field currently numbers 70 contributors and 160 publications by a conservative count (see my website at www.math.biu.ac.il/~katzmik/sgt.html). On the other hand, it is true that Pu is not notable in any way beyond this paper of his, other than a case in point of human folly in general and chinese communism in particular. Katzmik (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of Pu's highly influential paper with Liu. I will include it in the references. Katzmik (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability now seems to have been sufficiently established. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like another case where weaknesses in the article got fixed because it was on AfD and then there's no longer any reason to consider it for deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Weakness can also get fixed by asking at the appropriate wikiproject, or an individual who understand the subject. Nominating for deletion is abnout the clumsiest way to do it. Given the citations findable in GS, there was no real reason for nominating this article. DGG (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the person who nominated it didn't intend to nominate it just to get more references. We were pretty sure this was a non-notable professor; I'll change to weak keep, but I'd like to see in-text citations soon. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a result of a rush to judgment. It appears that some of the people urging deletion have a real aversion to asking for cleanup first, and I wonder how many potentially good articles and editors have been deleted or discouraged from writing here because of the unwillingness to consider that just because you haven't heard of something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is non-notable. - McCart42 (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - If referencing and introduction are improved to reflect P.M. Pu's notability, I support keeping the article. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - upon further inspection, the references are insufficient to establish notability. I support deletion. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that in-text citations have been added already. Katzmik (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they have not been added yet, there's just a random list of references and no idea where and how they were used. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations are not a requirement for the existence of an article. Paul August ☎ 03:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. An explicit statement of notability is required to justify inclusion and inline-citations are required to back that up. --Kraftlos (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To put my 2c in, Paul's statement seems more exact. By its plain current wording, CSDA7 explicitly is a lower standard than notability, and distinguishes itself from verifiability. Only "a reasonable indication of why it might be notable" is required, not an inline cited statement. For example, I recently de-speedied an article about an artist and added a book biography of him published that same day under Further reading. Deletion under any rule would then be absurd.John Z (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am still puzzled at the claim that the article does not contain in-line citation. The items in the references are numbered, and the text of the page contains references to those numbers. If Kraftlos prefers electronic internal links, I would be much obliged if he could introduce them (there are not too many of them). What exactly is "a random list of references"? Katzmik (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that notability can only be supported by inline citations is egregious mission-creep. What the guideline says is If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't references at all. After careful checking and reading the article, none of those were actually references. Most were to point to PU's papers, as noted in the text. The only actual possible ref "Katz" is claimed in the first paragraph (before it was edited) to be the "basis" for the remarks, which are still in a horribly written essay style. I've cleaned up some of it, but I still don't see any actual value in the article. Bibliography item 6 wasn't used or mentioned anywhere at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Simply having some information about works that might establish notability is not the same thing as stating why the subject is notable then using the inline citations to back it up. Those books might say that, but the person reading the article needs to know why without having to search those books. Please re-read Burden of Evidence. Also the Google scholar search is not a valid method for establishing notability, see: WP - Invalid criteria. As it stands now it fails all criteria for notability under the specific academics guidelines; which is what we're working with here, not the general Wikipedia:Notability.

Some other things: simply being mentioned in some books does not constitute "significant coverage". And yes, verifiability is a requirement here because one cannot establish notability without it. An inline citation is not the same as placing numbers next to the references on a list. This is an electronic encyclopedia, so it's expected that you use electronic <ref>'s to explain where the information come from. This is simply common sense. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But as explained above, there is no policy that requires inline citations (see also WP:V#Notes_and_references) or even explicit statements of notability in order to prevent deletion. Google scholar search and the like, to find if an academic's works are highly cited, are perhaps the main criterion for academic notability under WP:PROF, see its Notes and examples section.John Z (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I keep saying to read that section! The first section of WP:Verifiability clearly states that completely referenced inline citations are required. I quote: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." --WP:BURDEN Because there is no verifiable independent coverage in the article, notability has not been established. And no, the guidelines clearly state that search engine statistics (aka google scholar) are not sufficient to establish notability.. --Kraftlos (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable mathematician, though not a celebrated one. The other reasons cited don't amount to a case for deletion. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Wikipedia is not here to be the personal mirror of someone's badly written personal essay. Even the way its written makes it obvious it is just a personal essay and is filled with guesses and maybes with no firm backing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are just reasons to improve the article not deleted as pointed out below. If you're not going to stick with your "not notable" argument, you have nothing left to substantiate a deletion decision. Charles (and plenty others) see notability, and frankly, it's obvious to me too. Pu is already far more notable for the one paper on systolic inequality than many people with bios on Wikipedia and by now I've seen a fair number of weak ones kept. --C S (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Deletion policy "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Richard Pinch (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained this. She didn't nominate the page so it could be improved; the intent was deletion as evidenced by everything in this discussion. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not why the page was nominated, but rather whether it should be deleted. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point. The deletion nomination was not initiated to improve the page, as you just claimed. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why you should think I claimed that: I did not intend to make any such assertion, I don't think I did and I don't really care anyway. Would it affect the case for deletion or retention either way? Richard Pinch (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you quote this: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." if you did not mean to say that? What do you mean here? --Kraftlos (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is, there not only is there not enough on the article justify its notability, I don't believe the subject itself is notable. --Kraftlos (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the nominator seems to have abandoned the "not notable" argument, instead focusing on aspects of the article that make it weak. --C S (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't abandoned anything. I still don't think he's notable except to maybe extreme math geeks. Certainly not notable by Wikipedia standards. I just am not going to bother wasting the energy arguing folks who obviously believe he is somehow notable even without any actual demonstrated significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even begin to comprehend this argument. The "significant coverage" has been "demonstrated" in the text of this AfD, whether or not you care to read it. First, your argument seems downright insulting to students of mathematics. Second, Wikipedia has numerous articles which are only relevant to students of a field; this does not make them any less notable. And finally, you don't get to say what is or is not notable purely based on your interests. Just because you don't study math doesn't mean no one does. Please think about these things before you push another AfD on a topic that seems uninteresting to you. Try cleanup first. - McCart42 (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. 'Nuff said. --C S (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add something though. Kraftlos seems to be highly confused about verifiability and notability. The notability guidelines do not require that the information actually be in the article. It only requires that the cites exist, and there is plenty just in this discussion (see above for Nsk92 and Jitse's comments) which suffice. If it bothers Kraftlos that this information is not in the article, he or she should feel free to add them to the article rather than use extraneous arguments for deletion. --C S (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is pathetic. This sort of deletionism is exactly what has gone wrong with Wikipedia. The article has been in existence for less than a week, and already people are pushing for deletion without giving anyone else a chance to contribute to clean it up. Katzmik has done a lot of good writing here and rather than support their efforts we are punishing the lack of references before the article has even had a chance to undergo peer review. Pu has been published and his work has been cited by dozens of other authors. You're telling me one of Pu's mathematical proofs is notable but he is not??? I'd love to see one example of any other academic who is non-notable yet has a law or conjecture that is notable. It gives one pause to think how much good writing has been deleted because of the overzealous efforts of a few people who think only their own contributions are notable. Have either of you ONCE requested cleanup rather than immediately jumping to the call for deletion? - McCart42 (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see that it was a new article. Had I known that, I would have been a little more forgiving. I jumped on after the discussion got going. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In addition to the comments made, his influence on Harikathe in Karnataka is also cited in Encyclopaedia of Indian literature. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gururajulu Naidu

Non notable religious leader, narrator. Also, there are no reliable sources that confer notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article in The Hindu refers to him as "Gururajulu Naidu, the most popular Kannada harikatha exponent in recent times".[52] There are 282 Ghits for him.[53] There must be numerous non-English sources available also, if anyone can provide those. ~ priyanath ^talk 17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very popular Harikathe exponent of Karnataka. [54][55]. Sarvagnya 18:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Private Cloud

non notable, unverifiable buzzword spam/neologism. completely unreferenced despite being tagged as such since may and fails to even assert notability. created by owner of vendor Enomalism (also nominated) who claims to have coined the term. user warned for conflict of interest. should have been speedied already and probably would have if it referenced Enomalism directly. internet search results are the author himself and/or not notable too. WikiScrubber (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to be any mention of this concept independent of Reuven Cohen. There are no reliable references that would establish it as being a notable concept outside of one individuals reasoning. WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:N are my main concerns related to the article itself. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newtown area graffiti and street art

Article appears to consist entirely of original research ~~(not to mention copyvios, though there's always some confusion of the copyright status of graffiti at IFD)~~.Take that back, there is freedom of panorama in Australia. I can't find any sources suggesting that this particular graffiti is notable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I seem to remember that some people tried to have this article deleted once before, yet I can't see a link to a previous AfD on the article talk page.--Lester 12:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be thinking of this [56] Melburnian (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, thanks, Melbournian. That must have been where I saw this article come up before.--Lester 13:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although I brought this to AWNB originally, I have changed my mind about deleting it. Some (and I stress some, not all) of this "art" is iconic in Sydney - especially the Martin Luther King mural and the Three Proud People mural. There are definitely books on the subject. It is not all going to be original research. Let's allow the user to keep the article and improve on it. It does have some references which can't be said for a lot of articles. JRG (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the murals that User:JRG cites (above) have both been the subject of multiple Sydney Morning Herald articles, such as this and this(scroll down to 2nd story, 'Well Hidden Mural'). There are more if requested. The author should add some of these references to the article. Also, I would consider a change of article name, to put the word 'mural' in there.--Lester 06:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Computer That Ate My Brother

I can't find any reliable sources ~~that show the book's notability~~. Schuym1 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - what criteria are you using as "reliable sources" to check on this book? Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - I see a problem with finding information on this book on the internet since it was written 5 years before the internet became widely used. I think this will require digging into the archives at a library or something. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even without the benefit of a library Worldcat shows that it has been through 6 editions, and is held in 352 US libraries, plus libraries in the UK and Australia. A GoogleBooks search shows 2 scholarly publications that cite this book as a source, see here and here. I'd say it passes WP:N. Tassedethe (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on the excellent work Tassedethe did digging up sources. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of sources out there to prove the book's notability. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's clearly a difference of opinion about how sources prove the notability of the website. There's no consensus either way, so the default move is to close as no consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House Price Crash

Does not meet WP:WEB - Two working sources are given, both of which mention the website, but neither of which have the site as more than a passing mention. In addition, this page makes an interesting read. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep As it says in the article "The media spokesman for housepricecrash is financial adviser Jonathan Davis. He has made various appearances in the media, including BBC Breakfast, BBC 6 O'clock and 10 O'clock News, Sky News, Panorama, ITN's The Tonight Programme and Bloomberg TV, as well as numerous radio appearances (eg Jeremy Vine, BBC Radio 5 Live) and in national newspapers." The Kirstie Allsop thread was stupid (and I dealt with some vandalism arising from that) but it in no way affects the subjects notability. JASpencer (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But those programs haven't been about him; they've just had him in it. In any case, that claim needs to be sourced, and if it was, it would make Jonathan Davis (property consultant) notable - not this site. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me extend this a bit - the only mention of the site on the BBC article is "Jonathan Davis is a Chartered Financial Planner and is also a spokesman for www.HousePriceCrash.co.uk.". The only mention in the other working source is "Websites such as house-pricecrash.co.uk, pricedout.org.uk and globalhouse-pricecrash.com are sticking to their belief that the housing market is in for a rocky ride.". Two passing mentions does not equate to passing WP:WEB - "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works... except for trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address." [my emphasis]. The sources just state the internet address, they are about the housing market rather than the website, and thus they don't meet WP:WEB. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note They've got a board here where they chronicle mentions in the press. It looks like it's going to be a matter of simply collecting them and putting them on the article. JASpencer (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These only improve the notability of Jonathan Davis... 90% of them mention the website with 'Jonathan Davis, Financial adviser and owner of the website HousePriceCrash.co.uk, says...' - It seems to me to be a list of trivial mentions. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JASpencer. Dwain (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —JASpencer (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —JASpencer (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —JASpencer (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB. Having a notable person front it doesn't make the site notable. TerriersFan (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If I make some appearances on media talking about my job, does that automatically make the company I work for notable? No, it doesn't. None of the linked are actually about the company, it's just one of their employees' comments. Black Kite 18:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [57] Top 25 property blog. Top 3 no less... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.164.126 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC) — 82.153.164.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep popular and well know website devoted to a topical subject of major economic importance.217.171.129.77 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Dubious use of references, which are NOT about this website. As others note, it's all en passant trivial mentions). / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From the layout of the article, it seems that the bulk of the content (because there's only "a few" academic articles) is the blog and forums. Predictions and price sources can obviously be found elsewhere, as the "top 25" nature of the list means it's not a unique source. We don't even need to go as par as WEB: three of the mentions are trivial, two other sources relate to the same story, and that leaves one news story in an almost five-year period (from source dating), which is not enough to assert notability. WEB allows for other coverage, but that's not there either. MSJapan (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Times think it's notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - they don't say that the website is notable - they have picked out 25 property blogs and have cited the blog sections not the substantive websites. The link here is a series of articles posted by readers with anonymous comments. TerriersFan (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC) TerriersFan (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If people want more than one reference in one newspaper, here's a few; one from each of the major national newspapers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2008/may/29/housepricesjudgementdayor

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/stephen-king/stephen-king-as-safe-as-houses-how-harsh-realities-are-dispelling-the-home-market-myths-826288.html

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/06/24/14017/homes-under-the-hammer-double-bill/

It's a notable website and as a result it's noted frequently in national newspapers and on finance / business news programs in the UK when housing related issues are being discussed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerheid (talk • contribs)

Comment Three more passing mentions in articles that are not about the website. Black Kite 22:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plugs for the website within forum posts attached to a newspaper article are not acceptable references.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable - All the sources are trivial mentions of the website, apart from the London Tonight piece, which might be non-trivial (although a third-party source would be needed), but on its own isn't enough to establish notability. Silverfish (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, gets mentions seems reasonably notable. If I were to start going through and nominating non-notable websites/software/etc., I certainly wouldn't start here. --Delirium (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is advertising, not a notable website.—Perceval 04:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a content problem it should be not be dealt with through an AfD, it is a misuse of the process. JASpencer (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Well known financial website, I'm amazed this is up for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.220.247 (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC) — 82.27.220.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, Its a site relevant to the discussion of the economics of the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Sabine (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC) — Keith Sabine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relevant, perhaps. Notable? per WP:WEB? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this site is constantly mentioned in UK media. A spokesman from Hitwise stated on BBC Radio 4 on Saturday 30th August 2008 that "House Price Crash" was one of the most searched for terms in the UK at the moment. Pandini (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth does that mean it's notable? Just because an incredibly popular term happens to share the name of the website, it doesn't make the website notable! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err "This site is constantly mentioned in UK media" is what on earth makes it notable. JASpencer (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Davis is contantly mentioned in UK media, not the site... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's you're (wrong) opinion. The point that was originally made is that the site is constantly reported in the British media. Which it is. JASpencer (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has yet proven that with more than non-trivial references, however. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you redefine the word trivial this could the case. JASpencer (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial" means that most of the references are of the form "Johnathan Davies, from HousePriceCrash.co.uk, said....". That's a trivial reference, because it means that the article isn't about the website, but merely quoting someone who works for it. Black Kite 19:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly that's not quite true, there are quite a few references in this article that don't mention Jonathan. Leaving this aside there are only one or two occassions (not listed in this article) where he is speaking without being presented as a spokesman for "housepricecrash.co.uk" in much the same way that Ray Boulger is the spokesman for Charcoal. He simply wouldn't get on TV as the joint-proprietor of a construction consultancy, as I'm sure he'd admit. And you must ask why do so many (including the American Forbes and the French Liberation) turn to housepricecrash when they need a bearish comment? Because it is (was?) the premier British group that makes the point that property values are overvalued. (Yes, the irony that they are being deleted at the one time when they are proven right is odd). JASpencer (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that House Price Crash is a popular search term suggests that web users are searching for the site, no? I accept that some may be searching for information on falling house prices, but the term is quite specific, and I would suggest that the majority are searching for this particular site. Pandini (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that very much... "House Price Crash" is very much a term refering to the crash in house prices, a concern far more notable than this website. It's far far far more likely that the website makers might have guessed that people could just possibly relate the term "House Price Crash" to crashing house prices because of their super brains... - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may doubt it, but Google suggests otherwise http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=housepricecrash&geo=GB&date=&clp=&cmpt=q Pandini (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... that really doesn't make a case for your point; believe it or not, we British citizens are not well known for posting our every single thought on the web, and as of today, google can not yet do mind searches. Thank god i wear this insulating tin foil though! - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough sources here today to pass WP:N: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Price_Crash#References rootology (C)(T) 16:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep From my perusal of the cites it would appear that Jonathan Davis is more deserving of an article than the website. At a rough count, half the cites primarily refer to him. HousePriceCrash's role in things don't go much beyond that of paying Davis to get their name on the news article, which is what "media spokesmen" are paid to do I suppose. I think the website manages notability, just, but the article needs more cites that refer to the website itself and not just mentions that are little more than "this opinion is brought to you by..." --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I almost went for an easy Keep, until i decided to read through the references in more detail than checking to make sure the website was actually mentioned. Not a single non-trivial mention of the website is made and appart from the occasional use of the actual website name, even here though there are no claims of notability made. Take for example, [58], an article from the Guardian, a notable British news source. It says, "You only have to dip into websites such as Housepricecrash.co.uk to get a sense... ", clearly noting the webiste as not only nothing special, but as one of many other non-notable webistes, this one likely chosen purely on the name. No source gives higher status to the website in question and i can't find a serious source discussing the website or showing it to be notable. While the website is mentioned in passing as such on more than one occasion, a high count of such references with no substantial claims to notability should be taken as nothing more than statistical coincidence, unless an article central on the website from a reliable source can make the claim. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't that argument be applied to any other website or magazine, i.e. "you only have to dip into a magazine like GQ to see that..." ? Uncoolbob (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you could. Fortunately, most (though i haven't checked them all) can make other claims to notability. My point is that it doesn't have any other kind of reference. It'd only take one article on the actual website, or at least one line claim to notability from a non-trivial source and i'd switch to keep. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the "London Tonight" incident? JASpencer (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirstie Allsopp is not an appropriate judge of general consensus or a basis for claim to notability. Her profession is likely to lead her to purposely searching out such niche websites and in the case, it was only spelled out as a specific because as with all cases of expression of negative, it is claimed to be some sort of "incident" like she just dropped a grenade on someone. Her own notability or the manner in which the, *ahem* "incident" was delivered, do not increase its notability either. I am a heavy user of the forum at [59], I could mention the website and make comment on it to other people, that wouldn't however suddenly prove the notability of the website; it is a non-notable website which I know as part of the niche community surrounding it. Should the comment being made on TV have any bearing? Of course it shouldn't. Any commentator in any market segment, industry or topical hobby can mention a website online despite its notability and it is no proof that it is notable. She wasn't specifically making claims to it's "fame", and the reference even specifically words itself as, "a website like housepricecrash.co.uk ", once again generalising the genre. Finally, if any website mentioned on TV deserved an article, than a whole array of websites that had no other serious mention or non-trivial statements made about them would all feature, and we all know from instinct alone that half wouldn't belong. For example, every ClickOnline feature would be on here, along with the websites mentioned on every other show dedicated to the subject. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable; a lot of the information is available elsewhere and the bulk of the site activity appears to be in the forum. Goose (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do either of those statements invalidate notability? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't think there's anything more that can be added to the article - and it doesn't really say much, now! Goose (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but tag mercilessly. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racing guantanamo

Australian football (soccer) club. Does not and has never played in the A-League, but in a regional league organized by the Broome Soccer Association. No coverage to be found, 14 ghits in total. Fails WP:NOTE. Amalthea^Talk 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racing Guantanamo are a regional team but the league is well known throughout the Kimberley area of Western Australia. They have appeared on local TV news, as well as print and radio media. There are other regional based teams with articles on Wikipedia, such as ECU Joondalup Soccer Club and Perth Soccer Club, both of which have never played in the A-League. Therefore I would suggest that this page is allowed to stand. Broome26 (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
copied from User talk:Amalthea#Articles for deletion/Racing guantanamo. --Amalthea^Talk 13:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What the notability policy asks for is significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, i.e. coverage that goes beyond mere mentions or game reports. Is there anything of that kind? It needs not to be available online?
  Furthermore, and I'm no expert in Australian football, the Broomedesliga (which is a very nice name by the way) seems to be several levels below the A-League, if I understand Football West correctly.
  I'm going to invite people from the WikiProject Football over, let's see what they say. --Amalthea^Talk 14:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Amalthea^Talk 14:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that - whilst the league is small, it is still the biggest in the Kimberley area - because we are so far away from Perth - which is where the [Football West Premier League] is based, we have to have a league here. I assure you we are mentioned in the local newspapers, as well as local radio and TV news. Also, all players are registered with [Football West]. Broome26 (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I enjoyed reading the article and agree that Broomedesliga is an interesting name, but at present it fails the notability guidelines as there is no indication the team has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The current links in the article are primary, being the Broome Soccer Association and the self-published website for the team. These are sources affiliated with the subject rather than independent ones. You mention possible coverage in regional newspapers - this may or may not count as significant independent coverage depending on the newspaper and the depth of coverage for the team. As material needs referencing, if you have these references you might like to include them in the article. See here for what constitutes a reliable source. Euryalus (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm glad to hear you enjoyed reading the article. Like I said it is an amateur league affiliated with Football West, the governing body of Football in Western Australia. I have a number of articles from the Broome Advertiser which I can use to substantiate the notability of the club. They are scanned from the newspaper. Should I upload to the website? Or somewhere else? Broome26 (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable regional amateur club. Murtoa (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it's regional. Western Australia is a big place and we are all the way at the top end. Therefore the club is one of the biggest in the Kimberley Region.Broome26 (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes. This is not a professional league. WWGB (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither is the Western Australia State League Amateur Premier Division. There are clubs who have articles on Wikipedia from there (eg. Hamersley Rovers) Broome26 (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The club is not notable, nor professional. It is no where near the top league(s) of its country. Recreate when it's promoted to A-League. talk) 05:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are clubs from WA who are nowhere near the state league and have pages on here, Hamersley Rovers, Dianella White Eagles Broome26
  - I too have noticed a number of existing articles for football clubs in amateur leagues around Australia. However, the fact those articles haven't yet faced similar deletion nominations is not a valid argument for retaining this article. Refer WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Murtoa (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Sorry to all those players in who wanted the glory of a Wikipedia article about themselves. However, the group has not attained notability beyond the town, in a remote part of the country.--Lester 12:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quentin X (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exspurious

Google gives two hit, both related to this article. No need to transwiki. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 13:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO; WP:WINAD; WP:NOR. Ka renjc 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:NEO Graham Colm ^Talk 16:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced dictionary definition of an apparent neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 17:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Considered merge, but the article was entirely unreferenced and contained very little encyclopedic content. I am willing to userfy this article to any editor who in good faith would like to merge content. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola MPx220

Non-notable and quickly obsolesced commercial product. No claim of notability offered in article; no references provided to substantiate notability. Mikeblas (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Motorola MPx200. Information can be covered in a section of this article. Sebwite (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication it satisfies WP:N other than one online review. Wikipedia is not a mirror of a manufacturer's catalog or webpage. Edison2 (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola T720

Quickly-obsolesced commercial product. No claim to notability offered in article; no references used to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Motorola product catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add sources. If it exists, it is likely this has been written about somewhere, though I am not personally familiar with the resources myself. Sebwite (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication it satisfies WP:N. Wikipedia is not a mirror of a manufacturer's catalog or webpage. Edison2 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with other T or T700 series phones WikiScrubber (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as most probable hoax, and for lack of usable content anyway. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanky language

Non notable subject, probably a hoax. A google search of "Spanky language" with or without quotes give one relevant hit that I can find. That one is to a website that requires registration. Also, this is not a language it is only a different way of speaking English. Jons63 (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As patent nonsense. Lugnuts (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Firsfron as G1, patent nonsense. (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emporer of Catan

Non-notable vanity page for a game-player Oddharmonic (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy deletion tag was removed by an anonymous IP. StaticGull Talk 12:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - ugh. Yes, very much a vanity page for a game player. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (Can anyone vote?) Surely this can just have a CSD tag placed on it and let whomever kills such pages do their thing? It's nonsense surely? (New person to this page, not an admin or anyone with any power)fr33kman (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete vanity page for a nono-notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense.Graham Colm ^Talk 17:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enomalism

non notable, unverifiable advert created by company owner. probably should have been speedied already as spam (G11); also does not even attempt to claim subject is notable (A7). warning user for conflict of interest. WikiScrubber (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: From article's talk page:
- Companies are not supposed to edit their own Wikipedia entries. It appears you created this page without attributing yourself. Either way, this article is problematic. -- Anthony Liguori 70.116.9.243 (Talk)
- This article is blatant advertising for a paid product. 81.68.125.220 (Talk) 12:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have speedy deleted this one if I'd run across it patrolling new pages. It's a G11. Frank | talk 11:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11, confilct of intrest (pointed out in the nom), and non-notable. Basiclly, spam. RedThunder 11:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ - Was looking for some sources. Found [60], which would be an excellent addition to article to counter PoV. Not enough to establish notability, but getting closer. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional weak keep - [61], [62] (be sure to look at all links - has some interesting statistical analysis on it). presentation at infoworld [63] - i found this to be rather interesting for a open source project. I believe the article is salvageable, but a lot of work needs to be done on it. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV is irrelevant. This link, like the article itself, reads like an advert and is not particularly notable as an opinion piece anyway. 193.253.141.64 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Frank and RedThunder above. Even if interesting it's still not notable with the links above and there remains the conflict of interest. 193.253.141.80 (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please keep in mind that an article that has a an author with a conflict of interest is not a speedy deletion candidate because of that. Nor is COI a reason to delete an article at AfD. Frank | talk 12:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but it does establish that the article was created soley to advertise a commercial product and is thus spam (G11). Earlier versions were blatant copyvios too (G12). It's surprising it lasted this long given associated articles (Enomaly, Reuven Cohen) were already repeatedly deleted. WaikiScrubber (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close as SNOW 3 x Speedy Deletes (plus nom) vs one weak, conditional keep (referencing a blog, a directory listing, a blurb about a quick demo and a lukewarm review of an ancient pre-release) and no votes in days. By the article's own admission it's still vaporware anyway. WikiScrubber (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. It has been discussed in detail that the Dutch wikipedia deleted this article. Sister projects have their own policies and guidelines for notability and their local wiki consensus is likely different than ours on many matters. Although if another wiki has researched a matter and has a viewable page with coherent and relevant information to the discussion at hand, it is obviously helpful to reference such a discussion. But we do not generally ignore our own consensus-forming processes and blindly follow what a sister project has done without reevaluating the details against our own policies and guidelines. So for this to be the central argument for deletion here, is quite problematic. Several wikipedians (as well as the subject himself) have offered reasonable evidence that the subject is at least marginally notable under WP:Music, and so I find keeping the article is the reasonable thing to do. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tjako van Schie

Some people are interwiki spamming the article about this Dutch musician who has no encyclopedic value. He is at the most localy famous in his town or gemeente. It was decided on the Dutch Wikipedia a long time ago by a majority that this man was not encyclopedic but the people who thought/think he was/is didn't stop there, now they do things like this. Jorrit-H (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already removed from wiki-nl and wiki-zea forself promotion. Jorrit-H (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this very man has been removed from the Dutch Wiki, what on earth is he doing here? The external links are somewhat biased towards sites favouring the man in question, and the article itself fails WP:NOTE. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 10:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Dutch article was removed for it was written by the man himself. An error he later admitted to. The composer/musician seems to me to be undoubtedly of encyclopedic value. He has composed music, his compositions have been published in print, they have been recorded (and issued) on CD as well in public performances. Problems that might or might have not occurred (depends on your POV) on other wikis should not interfere here. Pithia (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WRONG - it was removed several times after that as well, because he was according to a majority not of any encyclopedic value. Wich brings me to the question, who's sockpuppet are you anyway? Jorrit-H (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep this WP:CIV please. Take these issues to Checkuser or SSP if you suspect sockpuppetry, but don't start trowing random accusations around uness you can support them with proof. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Keep. par rationale provided below.(Talk,Contribs) 12:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I wrongly omitted sources. Now I've added references. Pithia (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Switched vote to weak keep. I think these sources lift the article subject above the delete threshold. While it are not the best sources in the world, and the artist is quite a borderline case there are much worse articles out there. I see little reason to remove this one. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Upped to keep based upon my own investigation and rationale below. (Interesting really. I always deemed myself to be a deletionist) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This to mention "selfpromo" is ridiculous, as well as the absurd proposal here too for deletion. This very (well) known pianist was never to be "removed" from nl.wikipedia, only contested by people without much notice of music theory, e.g. [64]. Yours D.A. Borgdorff by: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article was anonymously created on the Dutch Wikipedia in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and Tjako later admitted he was the person who created it all these three times. Every time that article has been deleted within several weeks after creation following the normal procedure. The Dutch arbcom decided the article was rightly deleted and blocked for creation and that Tjako severely harmed both the Dutch Wikipedia and its community by constantly insisting to get an article about him on that Wikipedia and that it was clear he did so for personal profit. [65] After it was deleted on the zea-wikipedia he entered under two identities in a discussion to get the article restored and for both identities without revealing he tried to get back a biographical article about himself. Later he did admit it was him. Yesterday the article was created here and on the French Wikpedia and in both cases as the very first edit of the same new user. Seems very much of yet another act of self promotion. - Robotje (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be Dutch hunter again too: Robotje.! And for the nominator: it has to be closed: this AfD. Don't nominate articles for deletion minutes after they are created; it screams of bad faith. In addition, your rationale -- albeit consisting of only a few words, was weak at best.

I decided to give this article a final thought by checking the reasons for removal the the dutch wikipedia to determine if i might have overlooked anything in my analysis below. I have to say i find it interesting that the AFD on dutch wikipedia actually seems to have been based upon a ballot, and I am honest if i say that my faith in the fairness of the removal of this article over there is actually rather low.

The last AFD of this article is literally riddled with votes that should not have had any influence on the removal process. Votes without comments, Votes that state personal opinions as opposed to rules, votes that actually make no sense at all (Freely translated example: Delete: This article is just a going to cause problems. User (Tjako red.) cannot correctly handle it). There is actually a vote that is an outright swear against the article's subject. And worse of all? Apparently ALL these votes are actually counted towards the result. I would conclude that an AFD like this should have no influence on the AFD procedure here, as it is (Excuse my words) plain garbage where a well thought of vote is apparently worth little more then a content less vote. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ will be kept conclusion. Regards D.A. Borgdorff by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please !vote only once.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Would we keep a junior professor at the premium music school in another country, who's recorded CDs and has played concerts around the world? Probably yes. How and why the article was created is completely irrelevant. Zocky | picture popups 15:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He is one of the 12 people [66] working as a 'correpetitor' (kind of répétiteur; i.e. he is not a teacher) at the music conservatory in Amsterdam and this conservatory is not considered to be of a university level in the Netherlands. Calling him a professor (as is done in the article) or "junior professor" as user Zocky does, is not giving a right picture of his job there. His main job doesn't make him notable at all for the English Wikipedia. - Robotje (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Van Schie is not only teaching for Masters' classes practice at the Amsterdam Conservatory but elsewhere too, as e.g. 'stated': in Porto. - But foremost he's a piano virtuoso to be heard of, secondly creating music compositions. Of course he teaches as professor as inherently well. Yours: dAb 86.83.155.44 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC) (EC)[reply]

FYI: Just here to correct some arguments here, without trying tot influence the debate itself. I am Tjako van Schie. I am correpetitor and my job is also 'senior teacher' at the Amsterdam Conservatory, which has the official master degree in the curriculum. I don't want to go into details of the history of the article on other wikipedia's, but one thing I want to mention is that the article here, the article in france and the article on some local dutch dialect wikipedias are NOT written by myself. I did initiate the dutch lemma however, which I now regret, because it caused big debate about authors writing about themselves. About 8 months ago therefor I decided not to write about myself anymore on Dutch wiki, in order to let others decide whether or not an article should appear. The article which was deleted however was already also edited by others after my initiative. My aim was never to put 'advertising for myself' on that wiki, but to inform, because I believed my work might be encyclopedic enough. The deleted article also was built on quite a lot of sources of independent nature, if it helps for this debate i could provide those sources of course. I don't want to interfere with how the english community deals with a possible article about my work as pianist and composer, and hope the judgement will be on the basis of enough notability and reliable good sources, and I hope everybody will assume good faith towards me, like I do towards others. If there won't be an article it's fine with me. The Dutch matters and affairs around their deleted article are i.m.h.o. not relevant in regard to possible contents of an article here. Also what happened at other wiki's: i never used sockpuppets anywhere, let alone abuse them, an never had any secrets about my true identity in any wiki account. I won't interfere any further with this discussion, and wish all wisdom in this matter. If anybody has questions, feel free to put an entry at my talk page. On this wiki i contributed mainly in musical articles because that's my main expertise. That's all, happy debating for the rest. Regards, DTBone (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC) (Tjako van Schie).[reply]

Comment on Notability and AFD status I am getting the feeling that this entire AFD is mainly based upon WP:COI and WP:BIAS. The majority of the keep votes are being based upon being the article's creator/writer (With no specifics why it is a good article), and the majority of the Delete votes basis seems to be that it was "Removed at the dutch wikipedia". I find both of these arguments not valid for this AFD. An article should be kept or removed based upon Its compliance with the relevant guidelines in its current form, and NOT on the basis of having "Been removed before"

In order to get some form of debate instead of the current mudslinging, i have (To the best of my abilities) tried to verify if this article is compliant with the relevant guidelines.

- WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO. According to these two guidelines self written articles are strongly discouraged by the community in order to prevent any self promotion. While being strongly discouraged, they are not outright forbidden. The article itself seems compliant to WP:NPOV. I see no personal opinions and the majority of the text is actually sourced. In fact, the article is in a better state then many of the other articles. Personally i would therefore say that the article does not suffer from standard autobio issues. in case this is really a problem, an autobio template could be added.

- WP:N / WP:Music and WP:V. The notability of this article depends upon compliance with the two guidelines mentioned. If the article would be evaluated based upon presumed notability, rather then on one of the more specific WP:MUSIC guidelines, the outcome would be weak. Part of the sources are newspapers, but most of the coverage is local or trivial. However, when evaluated against the music guideline, Subsection number 6 "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" seems to come into play. This article in the china daily confirms that he has been on an international tour, and i would say the article qualified as more then just "Trivial" coverage.

The article also mentions that Schie has won several "prestigious international piano contests such as the Debussy Talent Contest in Holland, the Vladiguerov Piano Competition in Bulgaria, the Bellini Music Competition in Italy and the Marguerite Long Competition in France" My musical knowledge is not enough to determine how important those competitions are, but it might skim across music guideline 8: Has won or placed in a major music competition.

Last, the article makes a mention of appearances in several international festivals. While this is not in a notability guideline per se, it could indicate notability. As a conclusion, i would say that the individual discussed is at least mentioned enough times to invalidate any "he has been deleted elsewhere" issues. While the exact extend of his notability can be discussed, and is based for a large part on a single article, i would say deleting the article in its current state would be deleting a possible good article. While he might not be the worlds most notable person i am upping my own vote to "Keep" unless someone can prove to me that the reasoning stated above is invalid. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact correction (in order to get a clear image): I DID play in big concert halls (app. 1500 people each concert) in China in 2001 (in Bejing, Shanghai and Guangzhou), and the Shanghai recital was broadcasted nationwide for Chinese TV. Unfortunately the Chinese newspaper quoted by Excirial mentions things I did NOT do: i did NOT win in the Vladiguerov International Competition, but was there the only western european participant that year, which was quite remarkable, that was the reason why a Bulgarian newspaper, and a tv- and radio station covered my presence in Bulgaria there back in 1986. I did NOT win a prize in the Bellini Contest in Italy as I was not there at all. The same goes for the Marguerite Long Competition, in which i did NOT participate. The Chinese newspaper screwed all those things up, and i still don't know why (probably a big mistake by the concert promotors over there). I WAS rewarded with the Cultural Public Prize from my birth town Coevorden, and I did win a Debussy Talent Contest for young musicians. Also i won a second prize in the "Life Music Now Foundation", which meant i got a lot of performances in concert circuits in Holland. Rergarding international and other performances: i guess it is best to look in my past concerts agenda (although not all of that is useable as 'independent source' because it's mentioned at my site only). However under 'press' there are genuine scans and quotations. I did play several times in the Amsterdam Convertgebouw, and a number of those performances were recorded for Dutch Radio (Radio 4: Fuer Elise, Avro Spiegelzaal a.o.) Also I played for the Dutch Concertzender (a.o. own compositions), and a number of my cd's were broadcasted on several radio stations worldwide. Regarding my compositions: I write music since i was app. 9 years old, and a number of pieces were published, performed and recorded on cd's, and played in the Netherlands and abroad (a.o. Portugal, Italy, Germany). FYI. Hope this clarifies some matters mentioned here above. Regards, DTBone (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the reasons Pithia gave above: The composer/musician seems to me to be undoubtedly of encyclopedic value. He has composed music, his compositions have been published in print, they have been recorded (and issued) on CD as well in public performances. Problems that might or might have not occurred (depends on your POV) on other wikis should not interfere here. Otto (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Tjako van Schie has well enough encyclopedic value. Emil76 (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The account who made this article is using an open proxy for me thats suspicious. I also find it very funny to see all the keep voters from the Dutch wiki here, like the have a mail communication or something. All in all I haven't seen 1 good argument or any arguments @ all saying what makes this man of a encyclopedic value. He is localy known in his hometown and thats it. now please come with sources that proof this man deserves an article. Jorrit-H (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then there is also the question of the delete votes, including the nominator who is not on the best of terms with user Tjako van Schie on the Dutch Wikipedia and that is an understatement. --Kalsermar (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable, article is decent quality, referenced WikiScrubber (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after being less than convinced as to Tjako van Schie's encyclopaedic notability on the Dutch WP previously I have changed my mind on this. As a composer/pianist van Schie is notable in my opinion according to WP convention. Being broadcast and appear in the press of the most populous country on Earth would be enough for any person to be encyclopaedic. Also, I question the nominator's motives in this matter. As for the status on the Dutch Wikipedia. The article Tjako van Schie was deleted as self promotions but the attitudes regarding this whole thing over there sometimes border on the hysterical due to personal animosities between some members of the Dutch WP community and the user Tjako van Schie. There are more than a few people who argue just as forcefully that the subject Tjako van Schie is notable and should be seen seperately from the user and there is a discussion currently ongoing about undoing the block on creating the article which also prompts me to view the current nomination as suspicious. --Kalsermar (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Seventh-day Adventist academies and elementary schools#Puerto Rico, as merging has already taken place. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-day Adventist Academy schools in Puerto Rico

List containing only contact information for external schools, with no internal wiki links whatsoever. Originally G11 tagged but the creator removed the phone and website info (And the G11). Doesn't fall under G11 anymore, but it is still not the kind of page to keep around. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par being the nominator Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No links, references, pictures or information that could give viewers more of an insight into the respective schools. This is just a dull and un-informative address list. If you ask me, we're probably better-off sticking to the Puerto Rican version of Yellow Pages. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 10:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - I am cleaning this up and converting to a DMB page. However, with some introductory text this can easily become an article. It also provides a convenient repository for information on nn schools. This page should have been given time to develop before being proposed for deletion. Proposing deletion 1 minute after creation is unacceptable - it should have been tagged for improvement particularly since it was written by a new editor who requires guidance. TerriersFan (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article falls under WP:NOT, directory subsection. The initial article was even speedy-able as all it did was list contact information for the schools in question. When the user creating the article removed the CSD template and removed the contact info i decided to treat the article as an opposed prod rather then actually placing a prod or replacing the CSD (The user already contested the CSD, so he or she would likely also contest a prod).

I see no problems with handling an article this way. Articles are evaluated at near real time not only by me, but by the majority of the people doing newpage patrol. While i agree that i could (and should) probably have placed a prod in this case, it would still be placed a minute after creation. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Seventh-day Adventist academies and elementary schools#Puerto Rico to where I have already merged the content. TerriersFan (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment following the action of TerriersFan, we are now talking about the retention of a redirect. I note that the academies are ALL redlinks, so that it is questionable whehter they should appear at all (whether in this article or where they are now). However the question should be whether these academies are High Schools or for younger children. The consensus is that High Schools are notable and others generally are not, and should be mereged with theri town. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Volunteer" Canal Boat at LaSalle Illinois

Dubious sources seem to mask an advert for a product. Listing ticket prices is a clear indication of a lack of notability. Harro5 09:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (G11) — blatant advertising/spam. MuZemike (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThree newspaper references,including the Chicago Sun Times are not "dubious," are reliable and independent, and have substantial coverage of the subject, satisfying WP:N. A historic reenactment of pioneer canalboat travel. If the article sounds spammy, you have my permission (which you do not need) to edit it, since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Edison2 (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article was never intended to be an advertisement. The article has been edited so it no longer appears this way. Is there still something specific that needs to be edited that I am overlooking? Photos coming soon.Braddaman1 (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this is the article's author. They have removed deletion tags twice: [67], [68]. Harro5 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed the deletion tag when I first edited the article. I did not know I was not supposed to remove it. I figured since I edited the article, it no longer meet criteria to be deleted. I did not purposely remove the tag the second time. If I did so it was on accident while editing the article. I asked you to be specific if something needs to be changed so I could do the proper editing. I don't understand what is wrong with the article now. I have concerns now that this article is being arbitrarily marked for deletion. This is my first article, here is your chance to be helpful instead of critical. Braddaman1 (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison2; article is not spammy in its current state. It should, however, be renamed Volunteer (canal boat) per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). --Fullobeans (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced and renamed correctly. Pity this editors first effort resulted in him being threatened with banning instead of helping him out. --Brad (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, as blatant advertising (WP:CSD#G11). AngelOfSadness talk 15:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finam

Little or no encyclopedic info created by a User:Finam in self interest. No clear assertion of notability other than as a private holding. Looks like an advert and as it is at present not suitable for wikipedia. A quick google search shows that it could certianly be a notable article in Russian financing but at present it is far from having the content and text that a proper article on it should. The Bald One ^{White cat} 09:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Clear case of spam, advertising, self-promotion, copy-vio, and non-encyclopedic content. All that could be wrong with one article is here doktorb _words^deeds 09:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy This is just a purely promotional page. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 12:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as promotional - and so tagged. I marked the article in June for Notability concerns, though I'm not sure why I didn't just delete the thing. Given that involvement, I won't actually delete it - but I concur that it meets the criteria. I'm not seeing sources that would work for a neutral version, either. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Mendoza (singer)

Contested prod. Game show contestant only really notable for this event. No third party references or sources to support a claim to notability. Suggest a redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hansen Nichols / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugoy Bogayan. Since the prod was contested, the redirect would likely be removed as well, so bringing here for consensus opinion. CultureDrone (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until further notable events after Pinoy Dream Academy (season 2). He might have also competed in Philippine Idol, but that's all; there's nothing to further establish his notability after being a contestant of two shows. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 07:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject, as far as I can see, is merely notable as a contestant of PDA Season 2. Unless he wins the competition, or at least becomes a runner-up (refer to Philippine Idol's winner Mau Marcelo and her runners-up Jan Nieto and Gian Magdangal) or have a notable album released, there should not be an article in the first place. Starczamora (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. And to begin with, let PDA2 finish first :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Foster Care Council of Canada

While this may sound like an official body, it is not; rather, it is a six-man show trying to change how Foster Care works. They have no Google News results and the first 30 pages of a regular search show nothing in the nature of a WP:RS. As such I don't think that this organization meets the inclusion requirements at WP:ORG or the verifiability requirements at WP:V.

The author, User:Afterfostercare, is Mr. John F. Dunn, who had his own article deleted three times for various reasons. While he has at all times been courteous and well-meaning, unfortunately his edits bear the hallmarks of a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest, and judging from his recent message to me, he is trying to use Wikipedia as a directory or soapbox. I have taken his name off of the John Dunn dab page and I think most of the links to his website are gone at this stage.

Finally, although an A7 speedy may be appropriate here, I would appreciate taking the five days to go through the discussion and finally close the matter Stifle (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good call. WP:ORG says that non-commercial organisations are notable "if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization". I too found no substantial secondary coverage at all after a careful search, apart from this news quote from Mr Dunn - everything else is primary, forum postings etc. WP:ORG also suggests "longevity, size of membership, or major achievements" may be taken into account when deciding notability. The first: OK; the second: Six at most? Or just one active?; the third: none at all that we have citations for. The author's comments in Stifle's diff clearly show his intention is to use Wikipedia as a directory. So delete, but no problem with recreating when the organisation has solid secondary sources to confirm its notability. Ka renjc 10:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have enough reliable sources for a V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as it has 2500 hits in google which appear to be fairly specific. Article is OK quality too. WikiScrubber (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Benedictum. Insufficient notability for a seperate article but is an appropriate redirect Davewild (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Freeman

Google search turned up one interview with subject to work with for WP:RS. There isn't enough to support a separate article for this singer. Fails WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Benedictum. No individual claim to notability (and far too spammy - article appears to be an excuse to link to her retail business.) Ka renjc 10:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWOL (rapper)

Contested prod. Fails WP:MUSIC and general standards for verifiability when dealing with biographical articles. Lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without WP:RS there just isn't anything with which to work. Movingboxes (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best, this is a musician known for one band. A person identified as AWOL was associated with the Nationwide Rip Ridaz in some way.[69] Everything else about this article fails WP:V. • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and has some material that runs afoul of BLP that I just removed diff. Also as noted there are several artists who go by variations of the AWOL name so hard to distinguish even the basic sources (All Music Guide, etc.), although a real name would help. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverifiable, unsourced BLP about a non-notable musician. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 22:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncited article about a non-notable rapper. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Unsourced BLP text which fails guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hardly a BLP if he's dead. how do you turn this on 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't really confirm he's dead (or alive, for that matter) given the complete and utter lack of sources. Honestly now. RFerreira (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morbid: A Love Story

Fails WP:MOVIE. Not yet released, with a non-notable distribution company. Edward Payson, the director, is a blue link--but the article is about a different person entirely. Amber Rose could be any one of three people. Nobody else associated with the film appears to have any notability. Of the several "source," every one is a horror blog type site, and they restate the exact same information, apparently originating from a common press release. The film "is said" to be playing at some festivals (non-specified) before going on to dvd release. Movingboxes (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I fixed the wikilink to the wrong Payson. Google search finds quite a bit about the film, not all from blogs, but definitely heavy in the horror genre. I'll do more digging and perhaps take a crack at cleanup and sourcing and see if I can establish notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I added and adjusted a number of external links. Now I need to rework the artcle per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines to straighten out Wikilinks and lack of cites. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Have just finished a major overhaul of the article to bring it in line with style guidelines. Added several nice sources... including one from Italy. Removed all the incorrect wiki-links and set up correct ones. My next step will be to go through the article and source its statements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep article seems to have improved WikiScrubber (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Will continue to improve the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Zampino

NN, if she's most notable for formerly being married to a celebrity, that's not notable enough to have an article. Ckessler (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the ex-wife to a celebrity doesn't automatically make somebody notable. Movingboxes (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable person. Schuym1 (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – After doing some Google researching, I wasn't quite sure about this one at first. There are a good deal of online reliable sources about her, but at the same time no distinct biographical notability. There's a lot of archive news results mentioning her name here for instance, but nothing to really show independent notability outside of only being mentioned in context with her ex-husband. Jamie^☆S93 15:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - article was a hoax. GDonato (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh The A4 and friends

Possible hoax, cannot find any mention of this in Google Somno (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very child-like and simplistic hoax. Unreferenced. WWGB (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not been able to find anything at all on "Hugh The A4 and friends", save for this Wikipedia article. When I consider this, alongside the diction of the article, I am convinced that it is a hoax. The creator of the article appears to be a single-purpose account (the account is called HughTheA4AndFriends), just to note. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scrap it Imitation of Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, and a poor one at that. Nerdluck34 (Talk and suffer the consequences) 09:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HUGH THE A4 AND FRIENDS IS NOT A HOAX OR COPYING THOMAS THE TANK ENGINE! IF YOU DELETE THE PAGE ALL PAGES WILL BE PUT UP FOR DELETION BY ME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HughTheA4AndFriends (talk • contribs) (moved from talk page by Somno (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Hoax. The comment above me does little else but confirming that. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And by their acts shall we know them...Methinks the editor has shown his hand above. doktorb _words^deeds 10:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ If your account has the same name as the article you create as your first edit, then it's either a WP:HOAX and/or WP:COI. The threat above does little to sway my opinion, and actually hurts its cause. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the creator blanked the AfD page and wrote "HUGH THE A4 AND FRIENDS IS NOT A HOAX OR COPYING THOMAS THE TANK ENGINE! IF YOU DELETE THE PAGE ALL PAGES WILL BE PUT UP FOR DELETION BY ME!". I'm now changing my vote to Strong Delete and propose a possible ban on the creator of this page for vandalism and continued threats (just how exactly can you put all pages up for deletion?). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as hoax. User admits it here when he vandlized User:WWGB (which I reverted and warned about). Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, Poirot, good work there....doktorb _words^deeds 17:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and a ban for the creator of the page if possible. His only intent is to vandalize Wikipedia. Tavix (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — User:HughTheA4AndFriends has been reported to WP:COIN and to WP:WQA. Reporting to WP:AIV may also be coming in the very near future, I'm afraid. MuZemike (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this author/vandal believes that you own the articles you create. I'll leave a WP:OWN warning on his usertalk. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I can't believe it wasn't speedy deleted. Delete it, and watch the author. Dayewalker (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Gulyas

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-notable youth player. The only external source I found is this. So he might be his youth team's most valuable player, but that's it. Seems as if the article was started by his father or himself, btw. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he seems to be a talented young player but he has not yet played in a professional league and thus fails WP:ATHLETE also sources are lacking[70], to say the least. - Icewedge (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn (yet) unreferenced WikiScrubber (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral thinking

The information seems to be from the primary source of the term, Edward de Bono, and not from sources independent of Edward de Bono. Others have used the term "lateral thinking", but the article seems to be de Bono's views on lateral thinking, which should be sourced to third party material, not de Bono's material, and can be included in Edward de Bono rather than a separate article. Suntag (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize for not making the nomination clearer. Others have used the term "lateral thinking", but there is no indication that such use is of a common topic. The present article is of significant length, all of which avoids using any of "dozen books on the subject on Amazon with at least four different authors", which supports the position that there is no indication that such use is of a common topic. Which brings us to the topic of the article: de Bono's views on lateral thinking. If there were Wikipedia reliable sources for the article topic, de Bono's views on lateral thinking could be sourced to third party material, which they are not. You might wish to keep an article about lateral thinking, but that is not the topic of this article. This article ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is coatrack for a tangentially related bias subject: de Bono's views on lateral thinking to the exclusion of the general topic. de Bono's views on lateral thinking can be discussed in Edward de Bono rather than a separate article. Improving the article's presentation of de Bono's views on lateral thinking would still make the article a coatrack. Also, this is not an improvement situation where the article was on a correct path and veered off that path. Since the article appears to lack desirable qualities to promote, improvement does not seem to be an answer. -- Suntag (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination does not actually specify the grounds for deletion. If the concern is notability or existence of reliable sources, I quickly found a dozen books on the subject on Amazon with at least four different authors. WP:ATF: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. This is clearly the case here. Richard Pinch (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I am seeing plenty of room for improvement, but nothing to indicate article should be deleted. This is a widely used and cited term. OP hasn't indicated any reason for deletion other then the article needs improvement. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Silly nomination. De Bono's views on lateral thinking are obviously not tangential to the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep well known term often used. Sticky Parkin 00:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely used term, plenty of sources listed even in its present state, but can always be improved. WP:BOLD applies here - if an editor feels an article is taking the wrong direction on a subject, then write a new article from scratch. AFD discusses the viability of an article, not its content. 23skidoo (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable topic. The article needs more balance, and what is there could be trimmed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X Operations

Article presents no substantial coverage that the game may have had from independent, reliable sources (WP:N), or references of any kind (WP:V). With only 400 ghits for "team mitei" (the usual directory entries, download sites, etc) I find it unlikely that it passes notability guidelines at this time. Marasmusine (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author can recreate the article when there are reliable third-party sources to denote the game's notability and as material to write the article on. As of now, there are no such sources. Jappalang (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing here to prove notability. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Andrus

Non-notable baseball player yet to reach the majors. Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ——Wknight94 (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He's been involved with the 2008 All-Star Futures Game. He passes WP:ATHLETE, and furthermore, he passes Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball#Players by fulfilling the secondary sources criteria set in the guideline. —Borgarde^talk 14:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I disagree that he meets WP:ATHLETE because he has not appeared in a Major League Baseball game. He hasn't progressed past double A ball and isn't on the Rangers' 40 man roster, so it's not likely to be in a MLB game anytime soon. If by secondary sources you mean his one mention in Baseball America, that isn't much to establish notability. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doing a quick Google, Google news search you will find articles specifically devoted to him. This article needs to be improved, not deleted. —Borgarde^talk 05:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He certainly meets the criteria of WP:ATHLETE, as he has competed in a fully-professional league. It doesn't say that he has to have played in the majors - AA is fully-professional too. As for secondary sources, they may not be in the article currently, but I can't believe they'll be hard to find. This should have been tagged for improvement, not brought to Afd. Mlaffs (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. The rule says it has to be a professional league, not the professional league. The distinction is between "professional" (accepted) or "amateur" (not accepted except in rare cases). Professional implies that the full time career for the players is as players for the Rangers (which it fairly obviously is), Amateur would mean that they work five days flipping burgers and play baseball every saturday. Ironho lds 08:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep, since notability seems to be established, albeit barely. Will full keep if the all-star futures mention can be sourced. Wizardman 15:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask, and ye shall receive. Source has been added. Mlaffs (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full keep then. Wizardman 01:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neftali Feliz

Non-notable baseball player yet to reach the majors. Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:ATHLETE, Major League Baseball is not the only professional league, reliable sources are not hard to find on Google. If we are trying to collect and summarize all knowledge we cannot exclude professional athletes that people are interested in researching. —Borgarde^talk 10:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in the article establishes notability. Wizardman 15:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passed WP:ATHLETE, playing for a fully professional team in a fully professional league. Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Skin Album

It's hammer time! Tavix (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:CRYSTAL, Hammertime!. Although, one thing does catch my eye... "release date of mid-2008"? We're just a bit past mid-2008, I think. I hope. Or else I've seriously lost touch mentally. Calor (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete "not much is known about..." says it all really. Per WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. Lugnuts (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced speculation on an untitled album. Cliff smith ^talk 17:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts, contains multiple issues primarily that of verifiability and crystal ball speculation. RFerreira (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berta Grosser

Apparently a hoax. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Possible_vanity_article_and_autobiography. Has been deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia as a hoax, nothing in the German Wikipedia, no reliable sources that she even exists. Corvus cornix_talk 04:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely hoax. None of the on-line references in the article mention her, and Ghits all seem to be Wikipedia and mirrors and the like - no reliable source.If real then not notable - "2007 - she tries to start a career as a German pop singer" probably says it all. JohnCD (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if it isn't a hoax, she still doesn't appear that notable. Not only do the sources in the article not even mention her (as far as I could tell), but there's not a single English reference that shows up with a Google. Not saying that English references are required for inclusion in Wikipedia, but if there's this much worry that it's a hoax, I want to see some solid, non-German sources supporting her notability. Quite frankly, I can't really find German sources that support her, at least as far as my very limited knowledge of German (and how to use babelfish!) says. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, article does not establish any notability whatsoever, and seems to be a hoax anyway, nothing can be found via Google, and it is very unlikely that an even mildly notable contemporary German actress/singer has not left any traces on the web. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a definite hoax. The generic references are useless, and none of the potentially notable facts on her page checks out. French version was also deleted as a hoax. --Amalthea^Talk 23:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved discussion to RfD. Non-admin close. Reyk _YO! 05:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Median Border

I have no idea what is going on here, all edits are by one account. Corvus cornix_talk 05:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A1, there's nothing there! Tavix (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- this belongs on RfD, not AfD. I'm putting it there now. Reyk _YO! 05:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. As Ave Caesar points out, ghits are not an adequate criteria for establishing notability. Smashville^BONK! 05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is the REAL threat to the 1%!

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

The result was merge to Bridgeport, Connecticut. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Creek (Connecticut)

Delete for non-notability and for being a possible hoax. Google search turned up irrelevent hits only. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. In the first 3 minutes of the article's existence, did the nominator find time to Google this creek amongst tagging it confusing (minute 1), tagging it as a hoax (minute 2), and bringing it to AfD (minute 3)? This creek seems fairly easy to find in a search. • Gene93k (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) Not a hoax according to the Google Maps link on the page, but notability's another matter. Ka renjc 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a complete lack of notability. Nominator's ruminations about "possible hoax" are silly and completely irrelevant to any discussion. All that did was call attention to the "premature e-nomination" speed, which is also completely irrelevant to any discussion. It all comes down to notability. I'm sure the creek exists, but who cares? Inhabited locations are considered notable, but we don't have articles about every little creek, fork, branch of a river, babbling brook, etc. Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Could you, Mandsford, comment on this without attacking me? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, Arbiteroftruth, have nominated the article without attacking the author? When you accuse a contributor of pepretrating "a possible hoax", you're in no position to be indignant. Mandsford (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When someone, apparently without taking the time to do research, accuses another editor incorrectly of creating a hoax article, I agree there is little room for indignation when the hoax accusations are called "silly." Next time, do a little research before making accusations that a geographic feature found on maps is a hoax. Edison2 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Existence seems verified, but no evidence of notability. Not every dot and squiggle on a map needs an encyclopedia article. Edison2 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant geographical features are inherently notable, but this hardly seems a significant feature. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Bridgeport, Connecticut. It is an actual part of the city's geography, but a quick Google search on my part brought up nothing particularly notable about it to warrant an independent article. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a geography section in the Bridgeport article or to the neighborhood article in which the stream is located. --Polaron | Talk 20:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy/Snowball Keep per proven notability and consensus through the discussion. The article does need come cleanup, which would avoid it from being mistakenly taken for a neologism and being nominated again. (non-admin closure). RedThunder 11:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal

Article focuses on a neologism that has been tagged onto many mainstream/popular rock groups by a handful of music critics. It is poorly referenced, and seems to rely heavily on original research. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to be notable' "Nu Metal" Music returns 2,890,000 GHITS. Also, there are multiple categories for Category:Nu metal musical groups present on Wikipedia (created as far back as 2005), so I doubt this is a word that someone WP:MADEUP recently. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 04:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it's a notable subject, but it needs immense improvement. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 04:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: legit genre mentioned on all major music media site has like a half million hits on google it could be improved.--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup, but is certainly notable. I get 606 Google News hits and 479 Google Books hits. AfD is not cleanup. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It certainly is a notable topic. The nominator brings up no policy to delete it by, just the fact that it may need clean-up Tavix (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a notable topic; as others have said, it needs to be cleaned up. BBCOFFEECAT (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep Widely used term, but article is a tad unencyclopedic in tone. Nerdluck34 (The master of sock puppets) 07:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination. Term is widely used and surpasses the state of neologism in any aspect. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 08:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Paes

Not notable porn actress per WP:PORNBIO. Tosqueira (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not establish notability. Only one cited source. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Calor (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: hasn't won a major award hasn't made unique contributions hasn't been featured non-trivially in mainstream media = shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 04:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be purely an advertising attempt. Huadpe (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Article cites no reliable sources. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as no reliable sources have yet to be provided. RFerreira (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sickness: The Story of Nu Metal

Article focuses on a supposed documentary that turns up limited results on Google, and, to top it off, focuses on a neologism used to describe any popular rock band. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable, unreleased film and is currently just an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete without prejudice; can be recreated when the film is release and if it meets the notability criteria for films. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 04:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- I might be more amendable to re-creation of this page 1) if the film were already released and 2) the article contained more detail about the filmmakers and the actual content and structure of the film. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as above WikiScrubber (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. TravellingCari 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sabrccia

PROD removed without explanation or improvements to the article. Both Google and the Association of Tennis Professionals official website came up with absolutely nothing related to this player. Non-notable player, unable to verify anything in the article. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced; does not establish notability. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete limited Google results (and by "limited" I mean that the only two results are Wikipedia pages) suggest to me that this is a hoax or that this person is not notable. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 04:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that a registered user created the page and has edited it, but an IP editor pops up every time anyone suggests deletion and removes the tag without improving the page or participating in the discussion. Now why would an editor's first and only contributions be to remove deletion messages from articles? hmmmm Beeblbrox (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I just had to replace the AfD message again. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and AmeIiorate, I confirmed no results when searching Google, also no mention found in the 'references' listed (www.usta.com, www.usopen.com). -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just had to replace the AfD template for the third time. The article was created by an single purpose account and now a probable IP sock has been blocked for repeatedly removing the template, so I'm also asking that this be create-protected, since this user is clearly not interested in discussing the matter and is very slow to take a hint. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monastic remains

Submitted anonymously, untouched for over 2 years, looks like a prank. Does "The Geologist" even exist? Not at List_of_scientific_journals_in_earth_and_atmospheric_sciences#Geology --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 03:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Short, poorly written and unreferenced article. Absolutely no assurance of notability. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

*Weak Keep- I did manage to find something on Monastic remains from reputable or civilian sources. This page does need MAJOR rewriting, however. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Seems like a hoax now. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can find something on monastic remains, yes, since monastic and remains are real words and the phrase makes sense. But anything resembling the definition in this article? "monastack"?! --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 06:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that there is any such thing as monastack, and clearly the hits on "monastic remains" refers to monasteries. Looks like a hoax to me. Richard Pinch (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I took a stab at trying to find something that resembles this article, but it does look like a hoax here. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WikiScrubber (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Geologists love these areas"? Seems like a hoax to me. TN‑X-Man 18:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thammy Miranda

There was an AfD on pt-wiki pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Thammy Miranda and although most of the people voted for deletion, the article was kept (because the deletion decisions on pt-wiki depend on the number of votes not consensus and it's necessary 2/3 of the votes to delete). It's only one of the Gretchen's daughters. Not notable per WP:BIO, neither WP:ENTERTAINER nor WP:PORNBIO. Tosqueira (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. According to pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Thammy Miranda, she isn't notable (per WP:BIO), because she never had any success as an artist (neither per WP:ENTERTAINER nor WP:MUSIC) and according to the article,"she announced not to have an interest in an artistic career anymore". She only "appears" on TV because she's Gretchen's lesbian daughter (but Relationships do not confer notability). --Nice poa (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Heritage Leaf

The article is unsourced, similar to the hoax created at Canadian Vintage Leaf Flag. The article sources do not even mention about this "heritage" leaf and are just random links to hockey sites. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: Seems to be pure hoax, the claims are unsourced and the one I checked was false. The Canadian hockey team uses an 11 point standard leaf. Possibly worthy of speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huadpe (talk • contribs) 04:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its a hoax. No ghits outside of Wikipedia. That's a good sign that this is a hoax. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Doc Strange also discovered, I have not found any ghits for "Canadian Heritage Leaf" outside of Wikipedia. The sources cited in the article, as Zscout370 stated, do not talk about a "Canadian Heritage Leaf" at all. As a result, I believe the article breaks WP:V, and WP:OR. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hoax, eh? This article is too hoaxalicious for me babe. Nerdluck34 (Talk to me at your own risk) 07:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly a hoax. Very few Google results. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All are Wikipedia mirrors. I wish I caught this sooner. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left the one link [71] to show that Hockey Canada will continue to use in its words "the all-important Hockey Canada heritage logo" which uses the Heritage Leaf. It has also been called and sold as the Vintage Leaf [72], but Hockey Canada has officially designated it as indicated. Not sure what further information is needed to maintain the article - any help in preventing deletion and not just criticism would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likemike1 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Flag of Canada and/or National symbols of Canada. I'm surprised at the people calling it a hoax, this article is just Original research. Of course this version of the maple leaf was used at previous Olympics and in other ways and is still used in "throw-back" versions. Failing Reliable sources, however, means it is difficult to write an article at this time. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perecman & Fanning

Fails WP:CORP. Small New York personal injury law firm, makes no claim to notability with regards to number of attorneys or other personnel, dollar amount of revenues, famous lawyers practicing there, or anything else that the rest of the law firm articles on Wikipedia should have. See Category:Law firms of the United States and look at some of the articles in there to understand what I mean. Eastlaw (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastlaw (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: According to the article's talk page, the firm doesn't even exist anymore. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, insignificant refs, not notable ukexpat (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this seems like an advertisement. Mediterraneo (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonnotable law firm. No refs, etc. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable, and now that it's disbanded, never will be. TJRC (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max B

This artist fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple third party publications. There was a stint of news related to an attempted robbery, but nothing substantial. JBsupreme (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Esradekan does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines at this time. RFerreira (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maryline Blackburn

Only claim to notability is that she finished ahead of Sarah Palin in a beauty contest. Not notable by herself. Cogswobble talk 02:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only reference on the page is to a personal site, and a Google search hasn't led me to a single secondary source on her, just a bunch of profiles on various social networking sites. There is no reason to believe this person is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huadpe (talk • contribs) 04:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All the Miss Alaskas are notable. If you want more references, add them. The article is brand new. Give it a chance to get some body. Kingturtle (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there are no references. If someone can find and add references that indicate why Maryline Blackburn is notable, then this article should be kept. But there don't appear to be any. Cogswobble talk 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Of course there are no other references -- the Sarah Palin story just broke. Give it some time. 24.16.145.189 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the "Sarah Palin story" has virtually nothing to do with Marylin Blackburn. The only remotely relevant factor is that Palin finished second, the person who finished first is completely irrelevent to the story. Cogswobble talk 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin aside, all U.S. state pageant winners are notable. Kingturtle (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appears to have been a Grammy nominee.^[73][74] There are multiple news references however most are behind a paywall and I can't tell how substantive they are. I think she is an interesting in her own right (click on the bio tab of her web site). The political connection is coincidental. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This person is notable. My guess as to why the article may have been requested for deletion is perhaps that there is not enough information. Upon looking through the links that were listed on the article itself, I saw at least one bio. It should be enough information to make a larger article. Plus the fact that she beat out Palin in a beauty contest, someone that MAY be a future vice president, makes her notable enough for me to want to know more about her. Monkeytheboy (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gastón Castro

From my understanding of WP:BIO, a person should have multiple reliable, independent, and secondary sources that offer non-trivial coverage of that person for an article on Wikipedia to exist about the subject. All the sources that I have found that mention Castro, including the source that is cited in the article, are football reports which state that he was a referee for the matches they are reporting on. I believe this is trivial coverage of the person, and I do not believe this article meets WP:BIO as a result. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment I tried to inform the only major contributor, and creator, of this article, SndrAndrss, about this discussion. However, I discovered that this user has been blocked indefinetly from editing Wikipedia. I say this in case people would like to hear a defence of this article by its only major contributor. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - analogous to WP:ATHLETE by refereeing a World Cup match he has participated at the highest level as a referee. He also has chaired the Chilean committee of referees and been appointed by FIFA to positions of responsibility.[75] He is also FIFA trainer of referees.[76]. Smile a While (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn I do not agree that Castro meets WP:ATHLETE, as that guideline, imo, implies that it covers athletes only. However, because Smile a While has discovered two reliable, independent, and secondary sources about Castro, which assert his notability, I believe that the article now meets WP:N, and thus I would like to withdraw my nomination. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Animated Universe

This article appears to be original research, drawing original conclusions from existing material. Prod removed without comment by creator without comment or change. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section was on the freakin Lilo & Stitch TV Series Page. Are you red-flagging them for this matter. Besides, it was all on television and if you don't believe, watch these episodes for yourself!!!!Disneyvillainman (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. It was quite speedy; have you really been able to read and understand our original research policy so quickly? An understanding of that policy is essential for defending this article; you'll need to show the reliable sources that confirm that this article isn't original research. The television episodes themselves won't qualify for that; you'll need to look to magazines, newspapers, books, and significant online web sites (ideally, independent of Disney itself).

Well, that's a thoughtful and presuasive comment. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research synthesized from existing material with additional editorial comment, not encyclopedic. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have not been able to find any reliable, independent, and secondary sources that employ the term "Disney Animated Universe". As a result, I believe the article is covering a neologism, and I believe the article should be deleted as a result. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, and I'm not even sure most of these entries are true to begin with. If they are, they seem to be more 'wink-wink' inside jokes more than actual continuity between the series. Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. This is pathetic. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has a ban on "original synthesis" and that's what this is. Basically, the cartoon series Lilo and Stitch has moments where a character from another Disney cartoon appears with Lilo (or Stitch). The book Wayne's World: Extreme Closeup had an "interview" that Wayne had with Charo, that closed with, "Oh, wait, one more question. Did you ever notice that Green Acres, Petticoat Junction and The Beverly Hillbillies were all linked in the same reality?" Mandsford (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a possible attempt at creating a Disney version of DC Universe, etc. No indication that this is a term or concept that's being widely used. Just because shows crossover from time to time doesn't mean they necessarily belong to one identified "universe" or canon. I'm willing to revisit my "vote" if reliable sources are added suggesting that Disney is in fact attempting to create a DCU-like situation. Otherwise, as noted, this is OR. (BTW the above example re: Beverley Hillbillies, Green Acres, and Petticoat Junction is actually a bad example because in that case CBS and the producers did consciously set out to create an interrelated "universe" with those shows. A better example might be shows like Empty Nest and Golden Girls and a few others that were artificially linked in the 1980s because of a few ratings-boosting crossovers, but otherwise they shared no common connection. 23skidoo (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually Empty Nest was a direct spinoff of Golden Girls, taking place in the same neighborhood as the Girls and produced by the same company (Nurses was an Empty Nest spinoff in itself). I know, splitting hairs and all that. The TGIF stunts might be a more perfect comparison to this article, where somehow the kids of Full House had to be subjected to Steve Urkel, and of course the painful 3-D week of 1995 where all the shows made you wear the horrible glasses while they threw things at the camera (I have never recovered). Nate • (chatter) 05:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:OR. Schuym1 (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just reading the article gives me a headache. Original research, and a rather poor one at that -- merely a list of "guest stars" appearing on other Disney series, not true crossovers. -- azumanga (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moynihan’s law

According to WP:NEO: "A new term doesn't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." This article fails that guideline. There are no citations at all (therefore failing WP:V), and the two external links are editorials that use the neologism "Moynihan's Law," without attempting academic discussion of it. I did a Google search, and didn't come up with anything substantive that could save this article. *** Crotalus *** 00:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a lot of ghits, but many of them are relevant and on nontrivial sites [77], [78], [79], [80]. A surprising number of them do reference Wikipedia but the chicken-and-egg issue now seems irrelevant. JJL (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked over the four links you gave, and I disagree with your assessment.
  - The first link is a scholarly article that contains the phrase "Moynihan's law," but it is not the same "law" referenced in the article nominated here. Please double-check the context and you will see it is talking about something completely different.
  - The second link is an Indian magazine of unknown importance that mentions Moynihan's law, but references only... the Wikipedia article! You can't establish verifiability in this roundabout fashion. To cite this article would basically be citing ourselves since there is nothing else there.
  - The third link is an op-ed from the New Statesman which uses the term, but is not in any way about the term. This citation would fail WP:NEO. It's also of marginal importance at best, and I think that citing an op-ed in this fashion would violate WP:WEIGHT.
  - The fourth link is a partisan blog post which consists of all of two paragraphs. This clearly fails our guidelines for reliable sourcing and undue weight; furthermore, once again, it merely uses the term and is not about the term.
- I just don't see anything worth keeping here, nor any way to make this article into more than a WP:DICDEF of a neologism and/or a list of people who used the term. *** Crotalus *** 03:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JJL, you said "A surprising number of them do reference Wikipedia but the chicken-and-egg issue now seems irrelevant." Why do you consider the issue irrelevant? A source which cites Wikipedia to support its assertion is unreliable, and unreliable sources cannot be used to prove that Moynihan’s law is established (please see WP:NEO), and I agree with Crotalus's assessments regarding the other sources that have been cited. I have not found multiple, reliable, independent and secondary sources to suggest that Moynihan’s law is not a neologism, and thus I believe the article should be deleted. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was convinced the term is used (and I did note that the Georgetown link used it in a different way). I wasn't talking about whether there were verifiable reliable sources to establish what exactly the law was, though that seemed clear to me scanning the pages found--I felt it was used sufficiently to justify having a WP article on the term. The rest is up to the editors of the page. JJL (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The law may exist, but unless multiple reliable, independent, and secondary sources are found which offer non-trivial coverage of this term, it fits the definition of a neologism. A website that cites only Wikipedia, a blog, an article which does not discuss the term, and a website that does not talk about the specific law in the article, do not prove the term is more than a neologism. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total lack of sources.Brammarb (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above WikiScrubber (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elbow bondage

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable term. Although it is obviously possible to bind someone by the elbow, there is nothing to suggest tying someone up in this manner deserves separate coverage. WJBscribe (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this term is not notable. It is also possible to bind many other human appendages and there is no indication that binding the elbows is more notable than binding any other limb or joint. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 04:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable in itself. Granted, there is adequate RS for a Wiktionary entry and this paragraph in an existing bondage article. HG | Talk 10:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - term exists but is a non-notable dict def, and WP is not a how-to guide ~~even if I can think of some people who~~ oh, never mind... Frank | talk 11:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook." Sorry, folks, you'll have to learn about elbow bondage on your own! Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - ~~survived AFD in 2007, bringing it again so soon is really a type of forum shopping.~~ Merging with Bondage, or other articles would be fine. Regarding earlier comments, even if fringe, it is notable, which is why it has references. Atom (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was deleted as a result of the previous AfD. This is a new article subsequently created about the same topic... WJBscribe (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I found this from the last AFD http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13118 Atom (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found that also, by Googling "Elbow bondage"; it intrigued me that an irrelevant link appeared in second place during a search for an, apparently, notable topic - surely if this were notable, a commentary link would have been drowned out by reliable sources? ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in fact I believe this could be speedied as the recreation of previously-deleted (via AFD consensus) content. Esteffect (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently a new article about a nonnotable subject which was deleted fro lack of multiple reliable and independent sources to satisfy WP:N. Since this one also lacks such sources, delete it again and salt to prevent recreation. Edison2 (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete- completely non-notable thing that barely appears in WP:RS- this is the only mention I could find, and that's a passing one. [[81] Sticky Parkin 00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no one cares about that completely unimportant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youpi-youpi (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have provided a substantial reference from one of the best-known published books on BDSM. There is also an article in the Informed Consent BDSM Dictionary; while that originally derived from the old Wikipedia article, the presence of the article in the dictionary shows that the BDSM community regard it as notable.--Whipmaster (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A mention in one in-subject book hardly establishes notability. Just because it is notable to the BDSM community does not mean it deserves a Wikipedia article; this isn't Wipipedia. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 12:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone argue that just because the Mayor of some American city is notable in that city, he does not deserve an article because this isn't Kansascitypedia?--Whipmaster (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mandsford. I have no objection to the subject but there are no reliable publications currently available to support an encyclopedic document at the moment. RFerreira (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced a reliable publication sufficient to source at least a stub.--Whipmaster (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it were up to me this would have been speedily delete as a repost and sent to deletion review if there were any questions. JBsupreme (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No references to reliable sources. The "keep" opinions do not address this. Sandstein 16:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hair bondage

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable term. Although it is obviously possible to bind someone by their hair, there is nothing to suggest tying someone up in this manner deserves separate coverage. WJBscribe (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this term is not notable. It is also possible to bind many other human appendages and there is no indication that binding the hair is more notable than binding any other limb, joint or protein. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 04:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - term exists but is not notable or unique to the practice described. Ghits exist, but I can't find any coverage of the practice that asserts any notability to it. GNews hits refer to something else, as do gbooks hits. If it's this hard to find any discussion of it, it's probably not notable. I can be convinced otherwise with reliable sources, but this is the second AfD for this article, and they do not appear to be forthcoming... Frank | talk 11:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - ~~survived AFD in 2007, bringing it again so soon is really a type of forum shopping.~~ Merging with Bondage, or other articles would be fine. Regarding earlier comments, it is notable, even if barely so, and it does "deserve coverage" if it is notable. Atom (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I found this from the last AFD http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13118 Atom (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Dang, they better not delete this! If they start deleting "how to" articles written solely from the perspective of personal experience and commercially-linked photos (3 women, no men), without so much as one footnote, then what will Wikipedia look like after these types of articles are gone? Holy crap, imagine the consequences of them going from 2,000,000 back to 1,000,000 articles!"

Compelling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this started as more of a sexist concept, women tending to have longer hair, this is a growing fetish arena for all sexes and like so many others has videos, websites, forums, etc. devoted to the subject. Not my thing per se but that's no reason to delete it. Banjeboi 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, so fails notability. Recommend deleting and salting to prevent re-creation. Edison2 (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable term. A google search reveals no reliable sources. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete several books using the term don't even mean it in the same sense as this. They mean recreating the same hairdo your mum had!:) [82] the same with the news mentions [83]. The only book using it is a self-published work of fiction, which simply puts it on a list of wierd things people do. [84] Sticky Parkin 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because something's weird doesn't mean it should be deleted (Cleveland steamer).--Whipmaster (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an entry in the Informed Consent BDSM Dictionary, which shows that the BDSM community regard the concept as notable. There are also two external links. if Sticky parkin has found another meaning, he may create a new article, but that is no reason to delete this one.--Whipmaster (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A mention in one in-subject book hardly establishes notability. Just because it is notable to the BDSM community does not mean it deserves a Wikipedia article; this isn't Wipipedia. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 12:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone argue that just because the Mayor of some American city is notable in that city, he does not deserve an article because this isn't Kansascitypedia?--Whipmaster (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue isn't, in this case, the notability as much as the verifiability. At this point the article has to be rewritten to show the many terms used for the practice, a bit of the history and reliable sources supporting that it's covered as a subject. I know it's notable enough and you may but that doesn't sway the other folks here enough. Banjeboi 21:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kansascitypedia or not, a subject is considered notable if it meets the criteria in the notability guidelines; a mayor of a city is notable due to the media attention they gain (significant, reliable coverage, independent of the subject). "Hair bondage" does not have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. So even though it is notable in some circles (or should I say chains?) it does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 14:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the comments above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and should not be relying on dictionaries as sources, either. RFerreira (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Smashville^BONK! 05:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Kids

Contested speedy (that is itself a recreation of a speedily deleted article). Chess club for schoolchildren. No assertion of notability, absolutely fails WP:N. Movingboxes (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has no reliable sources (in fact no sources at ALL), and fails to assert notability. Interestingly (or not) there's also a non-notable independent film named Chess Kids. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is worth nothing if we can't learn random facts from it! ;) Movingboxes (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True... like the fact that elephants can't jump! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The website given at the external link shows franchise opportunities are available. This article is, probably unwittingly, advertising a commercial enterprise. The article fails to demonstrate that the organisation is notable in accordance with the criteria given at WP:ORG. The information may be true, but it isn't verifiable. The creator of the article has only ever contributed to this article, so there is likely a WP:COI. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I was able to find a couple of press releases from the (unaffiliated, as far as I can tell) Monash University discussing the group. Was also able to find this article from The Age. Together, I think they probably add up to enough to just scrape past the notability threshold. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep - the sources above barely make it notable, but they make it notable enough to keep. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 21:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a university newsletter does not establish notability.--Lester 22:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is The Age a university newsletter? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Newspaper articals I have found plus several school newsletters give it plenty of notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.150.50 (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC) — 121.223.150.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: The above vote was made by an IP address that has made no other edits in Wikipedia.--Lester 05:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Keep~~ I do not see why there is all this debate it seams notable enough. It's more notable than other pages that would not of had this debate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.150.50 (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC) — 121.223.150.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Comment Please note that this is not a vote and posting multiple "keep" statements is frowned upon. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable & verifiable. The organization runs chess tournaments for students at hundreds of schools. At least a few of their regional tournaments have been hosted at a university and received news coverage. I saw the article for the first time from this AfD, did a bit of cleanup and added a couple footnotes. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: New information - 'Chess Kids' is not merely "a Chess organisation" or "an educational organisation", as it says in the article. It is a private company called Chess Kids Pty Ltd (ABN 43 118 087 871) that markets and sells chess products for the profit of its shareholders. The company is currently trying to get people to invest in franchises in this business. The Wikipedia article does not represent this Pty Ltd company for what it is. It should be deleted.--Lester 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the company is non-profit or for-profit does not affect its notability for having an article. So what if the reason they sponsor the chess tournaments is so they can sell their stuff? It's the notability and verifiability that determines keeping or deleting the article, not whether or not the company is altruistic or profit-motivated. If you have reliable sources regarding their business model, that would be good info to add to the article, please do so, if you wish. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether it is the National Interschool Chess Championships or the marketing company 'Chess Kids Pty Ltd' that is more notable.--Lester 02:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comment, I found a reference in a Fox News newspaper that specifies that the National Interschool Chess Championships is a production of Chess Kids. You may be pleased to know that the same reference also describes them as a marketing company, founded by a chess enthusiast. So I've edited the lead of the article to reflect that information and add the additional news article reference. The several additional references now in the article further support the company's notability and verifiability. So, no, this article should not be deleted. But with your apparent interest in the topic, you can make the article much better yet. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It concerns me that there is not very much information about this company, Chess Kids Pty Ltd. Yes, in The Age article about the 'National Interschool Chess Championships' we saw that Chess Kids was mentioned, and it also interviewed David Cordover. However, most of the article was about the schoolchildren and the event, and about the popularity of chess in schools. There is not much information about the company itself (what this article is supposed to be about). We don't know about the company's franchising business. We don't know about its relationship to the other company, the book and accessory retailer ChessWorld Pty Ltd, which seems to be run by the same guy (one owns the other, maybe?). We need significant coverage about the company itself, not about whether or not chess is popular in schools. We need a lot more information about the company to justify an article about the company. I think the mainstream coverage about company information is marginal.--Lester 21:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lester, I respect your concerns, but your comment addresses article content issues, not considerations of criteria for deletion. I've already entered my comments regarding the notability and verifiability of the article subject, so I'll leave it to consensus and the closing admin to take it from here. Best wishes... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on Lester, before your edits to the article, it wasn't even about the company, it was about the tournament organisation ([85]). Changing the article to be about the private company that runs the tournaments, and then arguing for deletion on the grounds that there is little information about the company seems a bit unusual and a bit unfair. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The tournament organisation just happens to be sponsored by the company "Chess Kids", which charges "$50 per half-hour, or $70 for a 1-hour session" (ask about our group rates, $30 per person for a half hour, $40 per person for a 1-hour session). Please don't waste anyone's time by showcasing this as an article about a chess tournament for Australian children. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. New references. Because the AfD was relisted, I took another look at Google and found some more references and added them the article, including info about the innovative business model of the company, and the surprising fact that when the company was started, its founder was only 20 years old. In the ten years since then, it's pretty amazing what he's accomplished. Last year, 9,000 children competed in the Chess Kids national interschool tournament. The added references include another national newspaper, a case study in a national business newsletter, and an article by the Chess Kids founder that was published in the respected Teacher: the National Education Magazine. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The range of references seems sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). WWGB (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep barely notable, but promotional, references itself, etc. - needs cleaning up WikiScrubber (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lankiveil noted earlier that there were a couple of press releases "from the (unaffiliated, as far as I can tell) Monash University discussing the group." Monash University is hardly unaffiliated. The article proposed for deletion says, "Chess Kids has presented the National Interschool Chess Championship for three years in conjunction with Monash University, with the most recent event held in December 2007 at the Monash Clayton campus. The 48 hour tournament hosted 226 student players, from 45 schools. Monash University plans to host the event again in 2008." Krakatoa (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The newspaper and magazine articles that have been cited sufficiently establish notability, IMO. Krakatoa (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pengiran Omar

Reardless of systemic bias, there doesn't seem to be anything notable about this person. He was a city administrator, then a sailor? Even if there were reliable sources in English, if that's all that there is to say about him, he doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Corvus cornix_talk 19:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dear Mr Cornix, sorry for the misjudgment yesterday. I didn't understand the deletion process. Actually the was a sailor in his early age and then became an administrator. And the reference was added to make it true and see User Talk:Road Wizard for the cause of little reference. --Mohd wara (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree for you to delete the article because of the resources are in the malay language. --Mohd wara (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Comment removed by Mohd wara with this edit. Road Wizard (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: regardless of what language the sources are in, nothing in the article indicates what makes him notable. Corvus cornix_talk 20:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Problem - Dear Mr.Cornvix there are information on him that he was a party founder in Sabah but the this information is from a secondary source. So its not very accurate so I will put a sign for that. Thanks --Mohd wara (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably COI, nn unreferenced WikiScrubber (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=622543

[2] ttp://kotaku.com/5043829/a-taste-of-pax-bit-boxing

[3] ttp://videogameplayerz.net/content/pax-2008-8-bit-freestyle

[1]

[2]

[3]