Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 16

< December 15	December 17 >

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 speedy delete (G11) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total Project Control (TPC)

This feels as it stands very much like a spammy article placed here to publicise Devaux and his book. The term "Total Project Control" is one that gives many Ghits, but just how many are relevant to the article? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost none, and it's pretty obvious that TotalProjectControl(TPC) (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account. However, Google Web is not the only place to look for sources for articles, especially for articles that alreday cite books as sources. Have you looked at the books? At least one of them is not by Devaux, according to the citation. Have you looked for other books?
This is a far better rationale than your rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expected project profit (EPP), by the way. You should replace the rationale at the latter with something such as the above. But you should still check the sources of articles that cite them. That's what readers are told to do, and we editors should be doing no less. Uncle G (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, in fact, I think it could justify a speedy as G11., promotional only spam. .DGG (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Scott Peck and Shannon Peck

No evidence of notability, no references. Appears to be a promotional article for Dr. and Ms. Peck who according to their website "are co-founders of TheLoveCenter, a non-profit educational organization dedicated to Raising Universal Love Awareness & Awakening a World of Love Masters." andy (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Shannon Peck andy (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was giving article creator a chance to establish notability based on this 1 --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm undecided; hard to assess notability because of overlap withM. Scott Peck. The article does make some assertion of notability by listing this Peck's publications. JamesMLane t c 05:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would redirect this to M. Scott Peck if this is deleted. I wondered whether the articles might be about the same person when I first read this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I assumed they were different people because the articles and various ghits seem to be about different people. Also one of them is dead. But I'm not so sure now. andy (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep; nomination was not completed. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Brengle

bdodo1992 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (spam). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expected project profit (EPP)

This is a dicdef, thus not WP material. Delete and transwiki to Wiktionary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary doesn't want an encyclopaedia article that tells people about Expected Project Profit, including, for example, what factors will cause variance in it. Wiktoinary articles are about words and idioms, not about concepts. Please read our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy again, and when its true meaning has been absorbed, supplement it by reading Wiktionary's Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia policy. Uncle G (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional only--possibly a G11 speedy deletion as improvable spam. DGG (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This seems to be an attempt at re-inserting the deleted article Total Project Control (TPC) for promotional purposes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear consensus.--Jersey Devil (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitziggle

No references support the notability of this to be released book. No ghits. Possibly a hoax. Speedy declined. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No article exists for the author, and I couldn't find any coverage on the book. Even if it isn't a hoax, it fails WP:BK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtyq2 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the speedy decliner. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per talkpage, no google evidence that either the book author or the book exists/will exist. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An IP with conflicts of interest just admitted that the book author "has just begun his career". – sgeureka ^t•c 00:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Xihr 01:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE as disruptive vandalism. I've lost track how many hoaxes we've hosted here on Wikipedia now, its way past the 100 mark. :-( JBsupreme (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), as consensus determined the subject meets the requirements of WP:PROF. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawson Wulsin

Non-notable under WP:BIO or WP:PROF guidelines Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full professor at reputable university;[1] Google Scholar[2] finds a couple of reviews on which he is first author with 227 & 162 citations, 7 other papers with over 20 citations. His popular book,[3] while not a best-seller, appears to have been reviewed in several sources (see publisher[4]/author sites) and has led to some media appearances eg [5][6]. Appears adequate to meet my interpretation of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are 9 criteria in the guideline page, and I don't see how the article meets any of them.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" is usually interpreted in terms of citations, as these show how the academic community has built on the body of work. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1; referred to above by Espresso Addict. His book - Treating the aching heart: A guide to depression, stress, and heart disease – is held by 648 libraries worldwide. He is also widely cited.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I really dislike WP:AUTO/WP:COI cases (as this one appears to be: the article was created by User:Wulsinstu), but the subject does appear to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:PROF based on the data in Espresso Addict's post. Nsk92 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict. The first point alone is enough for notability. The fact his book is widely kept in libraries and the fact his work is widely cited just clinches it. It means that his scientific peers believe his work is valid and worth continuiing upon. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient for notability, though a fuller article with information on the citations of his major scientific work would show it better. DGG (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imo.im

Fails WP:RS, seems to be non-notable and fails WP:WEB. No indication of notability, no relevant news hits. PROD declined by author. — neuro^(talk) 23:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - addressed WP:WEB and non-notable and WP:RS. Entry referenced by several existing wiki entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorrrrr (talk • contribs) 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your work on this, but I don't think you have (and, as I said below, I don't think you can). In particular, I wouldn't call any of the sources in the article reliable; the two strongest references are [7] and [8], both blogs and, best I can tell, not with the reputation asked for by WP:RS (very few blogs have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy).
  The one (!) link from another wikipedia article can't transfer notability either.
  It might very well become notable down the line. The current alpha version isn't though, in my opinion. --Amalthea 05:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, per nom. andy (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB at this point, is in no way a website "of historical significance". --Amalthea 19:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Pattern

This fictional topic does not establish notability independent of Transformers: Cybertron through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply trivial cruft from what I can see. Relevant information (if there is any) should be in the Cybertron article. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a appropriate small part of this content along with the other minor weaponry and devices and plot elements. None of the arguments in the nomination are reasons for deletion instead of merging. Agreed, this was not the way to write encyclopedia articles, but some of the content is nonetheless mergable. That point seems to be ignored in this batch of nominations. DGG (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly no notability for an independent, encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Lock

This fictional device does not establish notability independent of Transformers: Cybertron through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xihr 01:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial cruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along with the other minor weaponry and devices and plot elements. None of the arguments in the nomination are reasons for deletion instead of merging. DGG (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformers:_Cybertron#Plot which already covers this plot device in enough detail. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and create new redirect to Dinobots as vald search term. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energo sword

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xihr 01:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along with the other minor weaponry and devices and plot elements. None of the arguments in the nomination are reasons for deletion instead of merging. DGG (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dinobots and merge whatever can be verified. The main article doesn't even mention their weapons. None of the reasons provided explain why it can't be merged or redirected. There is no WP:DEADLINE that requires immediate referencing for fictional elements. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable; no grounds for an independent, encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eusebeus. No sources, no article. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wash'n'Roll

This fictional topic does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single minor plot line which does not require a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mgm. Eusebeus (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Transformers:_Armada. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra-Cannon

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Transformers: Armada through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformers:_Armada which already includes all the neccesary detail in the context of the series. There's no need for a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above. Eusebeus (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megas (character)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Megas XLR through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- because this character has no notability beyond the TV series it appears in, any article on it will contain nothing but plot summary and miscellaneous trivia. There is no sourced content to salvage, and other articles about the TV series already contain all the trivia and plot summaries they need, so a merge is not appropriate. The title is not a likely search term, so redirecting it would be pointless. Reyk _YO! 23:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I spun this article out from Megas XLR about 2 and a half years ago for space reasons (frankly I had forgotten about it). It's not going to improve enough to meet the inclusion criteria and the content is crufty detail anyway. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along with the other minor weaponry and devices and plot elements. None of the arguments in the nomination are reasons for deletion instead of merging. DGG (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's not quite true. Original research and unsourced statements, at the very least, should be deleted on sight rather than tucked away inside another article. Reyk _YO! 07:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no speedy deletion criterion for fictional elements that would require WP:DEADLINE fix. Making a Wikipedia:Subarticle for the main character of a show is perfectly acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No sub-article is acceptable unsourced. In the guideline you mentioned there's the "No need for haste" and "Breaking out an unwanted section". There's also the Avoiding unnecessary splits section in WP:SS. Jay32183 (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent notability established; no grounds for an encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a... test page, let's call it, created by a now-blocked youthful editor. barneca (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Alex (Sonic the hedgehog)

Contested prod. Not clear if this is supposed to be about "little" Alex Kidd, who already has an article. Content seems to be made-up, although the language is challenging. I did consider redirecting but article editors appear to be very protective of it. Has no notability separately to Alex Kidd (assuming I am correct about this) and if it isn't Alex Kidd seems to be insufficiently notable for WP. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on me for asking others to clean up after me, but I don't close AfD's and can never remember all the steps, and someone who does could fix this quicker than I can read the instructions. I'm going to speedy this; I'd hate to call it vandalism, as it appears I'd hurt a young editor's feelings, so I'll probably call it CSD#IAR, WP:MADEUP. Could someone do the necessaries? --barneca (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exosquad planets

This is a trivial grouping of minor elements from Exosquad that does not establish independent notability through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non-notable and original research. Xihr 01:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep proper and appropriate combination article for minor plot elements. DGG (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be too large to include in the main Exosquad article (so it's a valid spin-off Subarticle and it helps prevent fragmentation by creation of multiple short articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT as in-universe cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard spinoff article to keep main article from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. It is not an appropriate combination article because the items are not collectively notable. It is also not an appropriate subarticle, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, as well as Wikipedia:Subarticle#No need for haste, Wikipedia:Subarticle#Breaking out trivial or controversial sections, and Wikipedia:Subarticle#Breaking out an unwanted section. When content isn't properly sourced it should be removed, not given its own article. Jay32183 (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aryana farshad

not notable; fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. Has not participated in a significant number of productions and has not won any significant awards. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the amount of work done is very limited, there is one article that indicates some notability. The article is 2 years old and there appears to be no significant development following that. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - 166.191.146.170 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP. I have just cleaned up and sourced the article per MOS. The filmmaker is not only an award winner, but she has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, thus meeting the requirements of WP:N. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak keep. Michael Q greatly improved the sourcing, and I think it clears the bar for notability, but just by a hair. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Not weak any more. Keep. Well sourced now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Despite the amount of work done by MichaelQSchmidt, there are certain concerns, viz. why don't the award sites ([9], [10]) do not list the awards given; should we consider an award from a nascent film festival with limited focus and coverage notable enough for inclusion; the person seems to have notability among a select community, but should that be considered as sufficient for inclusion into an encyclopedia. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 04:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject has been shown to be notable in Iranian cinema. While that may not be quite as much as being notable in Bollywood or Hollywood, it would certainly be equivalent to being notable in French or British cinema. Nobody would claim that either of those is such a "select community" as not to provide notability for wikipedia purposes. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought LeaveSleaves concern to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where the discussion can be seen HERE. I have also posted it over at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response The Iranian, April 15 2004 speaks highly toward Aryana Farshad and her award-winning films. So does Iran Heritage Foundation, Iranian Hotline, The Persian Mirror, Arab Film, LACMA, Trinity Western University, Film Society HF, 7rooz, Stanford's Persian Student Association, Spirituality & Practice, Mazalien, Asia Society, The Hartley Foundation, ParsTimes, Iranian Psychological Association of America, and many more. I cannot speak toward the Telly or Davey websites not being properly updated, but with all the mention elsewhere toward these two awards, I am content to accept on good faith that the awards were indeed given. As it is, I was able to confirm the screening at the Noor Film Festival and her award there. I will now add these sources as well. With respects, there is really a heck of a lot out there in reliable sources to seal her notability even without the awards. Or do we exclude her because of her culture and ethnicity? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not have time at the moment to check out the new refs, but I must add that if you look at my edit record, you'd figure out that your allegations of cultural bias, racial discrimination or even racism couldn't be farther from the truth. Next time, try doing your homework and dig up some solid evidence before making such allegations. Thanks. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ???? There was absolutely no allegation made toward you, as your work across Wikipedia has been impeccable. The article you nominated was then unsourced and full of POV. You did what any good editor would do. I cleaned it up, removed the POV, and sourced the hell out of it... However when another editor then writes "the person seems to have notability among a select community, but should that be considered as sufficient for inclusion into an encyclopedia?", I cringe. The editor at once grants notability but then thows it into question as it seems to be "among a select community". Since the subject was born in Iran and has made a tremendous impact being a female of accomplishment (difficult in that culture), one can immediately see that the "select community" being referred to is the Iranian/Persian community... as shown by most of the references found. THAT is the alleged cultural bias of which I speak... a bias which is no way supported by guideline and an argument which has no place at an AfD. Even the posing of the question itself sends a chill up my spine. Simple fact is Notability is notability and "notability among a select community" should have nothing to do with that determination, no matter how neutral the question. So my apologies to you, and my raised eyebrows at the author of that loaded question. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Re: Schmidt's post to my user talk; I see that you've put a lot of work into the article, but Farshad still does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. She was audience choice at a non-notable film festival, and received a non-notable award that's given to thousands of people every year for commercials and non-broadcast video. She hasn't made significant or unique contributions, and she doesn't have a cult following. All she has is coverage by Iranian media and indiscriminate sources on the subject, and even according to IMDB she hasn't done much work. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 13:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NoteI think WP:Creative is the operative policy since it deals specifically with filmmakers. SERSeanCrane (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with SERSeanCrane, she passes under WP:Creative, and not WP:Entertainer. She's an acclaimed documentary filmmaker and not a dancer or singer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just to clarify, (From WP:Creative):

[Regarding] Scientists, academics, ...filmmakers, ...and other creative professionals:

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

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

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

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

Comment: I am still concerned with the reliability of some of the sources provided. There are a lot of them, though, which is re-assuring. Some things to consider: college/university associations and papers are generally considered poor sources. Also, in the list of sources proffered by MichaelQSchmidt, there is a library entry at Trinity Western University showing that the filmmaker's work is in their collection. Why this matters, I don't know; there are numerous theses/dissertations available at college libraries, but we wouldn't want an article on every phd candidate out there, would we? Also, iranian.com's editorial policy is suspect and I find it hard to consider it reliable: check it out. [[11]] SERSeanCrane (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am gratified that you grant this person passes WP:CREATIVE Any concerns with which sources are weak can be addressed in article improvement after a possible keep. Yes/ No? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Coverage by Iranian media counts for just as much as coverage in any other media for notability purposes. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced and notable according to reliable sources in article. csloat (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has been shown to have more than enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline, whether or not the awards and nominations confer notability in themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am inclined to agree with the comments above about the article having been improved. The subject probably meets the notability requirements now. Oh...and thanks for the clarification about the allegations of racism. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I aplogize for any errroneous impressions, and much appreciate you as the nom granting that I have met your concerns inre notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean you are withdrawing the nomination? csloat (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems has has, as he wrote "The subject probably meets the notability requirements now". However, there are still three delete !votes that have not modified thier opinions in light of new sources. Heck... I just found out and added that Prince Charles has funded her latest film... and geting the attention of an English Royal pushes her notability outside the "Iranian Community" just a bit. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants to withdraw the nom, I don't think it matters if there are delete votes -- all he needs to do is make a note at the top of the page that the nom is withdrawn and when it is closed it will be closed that way. At least, that's what happened when I withdrew a nom a while back. csloat (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Five Star Stories. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima (FSS)

This fictional species does not establish notability independent of The Five Star Stories through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along with the other minor species. None of the arguments in the nomination are reasons for deletion instead of merging. DGG (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Five Star Stories 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per DGG. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Five Star Stories. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mortar Headd

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of The Five Star Stories through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along with the other minor weaponry and devices and plot elements. None of the arguments in the nomination are reasons for deletion instead of merging. DGG (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Five Star Stories 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Five Star Stories. Some of it needs to be covered in the main article (the amount that needs to be merged should be the topic of talk page discussion) and it would result in a useful redirect that is unlikely to be needed by other topics.
Delete per WP:NOT: completely in-universe, excessively detailed fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. WP:MFD.is the place to nominate this, not here. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 22:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wannabe rockstar/Parka (band)

Article on a minor band, unsourced, fails WP:BAND. An admin moved the article to userspace so the author could work on it, but it has languished unchanged since April 2008. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Bridgeland

Non-notable under WP:BIO. Likely to be a case of WP:COI as the top 3 contributors have only edited this article or other articles strictly related to the person. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. A simple news search clearly indicates the person's notability. There are also sufficient references in the article itself to prove the notability. Concerns about COI and/or POV are not to be taken to AfD. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Washington Post and the US President thought this person was notable. If they think so you'll have to come with some extraordinary to the contrary. COI is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Flies way over the notability bar. There seems to be an idea amongst some editors that deletion is the solution to every problem. It is not. Where a subject is notable, and there is at least some information in an article worth salvaging, the answer to COI editing is for other editors to review the article for any content that doesn't present a neutral point of view, and edit accordingly, not to delete the whole article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairly Oddparents (pilot)

Absolutely no secondary sources. Previous "keep" votes from last afd all hinged on the fact that it was a pilot of a very notable cartoon, but I don't see any individual notability for this pilot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Pilots are often retained as having an implied notability, reliable secondary sources do need to exist for substantiation and the usual restrictions per WP:N apply. Eusebeus (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairly Oddparents. There's potentially mergeable material in here (provided sources are added) that are missing from the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As it shows the decidedly different personalities of some of the characters and their relationships from the later series, it is notable in itself. Do I wish the editors had more sources? Yep. Is that sufficient for a deletion or merge? No. Does it stand on its own as a short? Likely yes. Collect (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or very weak redirect Just as non-notable (WP:N) as it was nine months ago, and the closing admin warned that "merges and redirections are likely to follow" if the article doesn't get improved. Google News/Books/Scholar only seems to offer general information about the show, but nothing significant for the pilot. The one current production sentence was paraphrased and merged into the main article (no GFDL issues), where future pilot bits can be mentioned as well if someone should find any. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support giving grace to pilot episodes, as they are significantly more likely to have secondary sources granting notability. The previous AfD ended with a not-delete result for the aforementioned reason. However, the sources were not provided, now several months later. Therefore, this grace should no longer be extended to this article. The only content perhaps worth retaining would be the bit about the origin of the episode. But I don't see any particular need to retain the history and redirect: someone else can summarize the information in the main article if it's deemed necessary, and so the GFDL is satisfied. I do not anticipate anybody will actually enter The Fairly Oddparents (pilot) in the search bar, so I see no need to retain a redirect. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Fairly Oddparents. Some information is different between the two articles. There doesn't seem to be a reason for this particular pilot to have its own article. However, the information is of value on a sourced subject found elsewhere on Wikipedia. SMSpivey (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 3% of the article has managed to be referenced in the last 10 months (nor the 9 months since the last AfD), and it has no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy the notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per User:Seresin. The last AfD was keep. Not suprisingly, no editor voting to delete has bothered to add any references themselves. travb (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of improvement since the last AFD is telling. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to St. Thomas, Ontario#Education by me. Non-admin close. Reyk _YO! 23:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homdale ps

NN school would normally be redirected to the school district, but this is a misspelling. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Thomas, Ontario#Education where it is mentioned. Redirects cause less server load than deletions and since someone, presumably connected to the school, misspelt the name, it is obviously a plausible search term. Frankly, rather than causing work for several editors, I would have just boldly redirected the page.TerriersFan (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This is a prime example of WP:SNOW. Yes, I noticed the non-admin-closure by Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) has been reverted but I do not think that running this AfD through the process is likely to create any other than more keep-!votes. I understand and echo the concerns raised by Collectonian (talk · contribs) but deleting this article will not solve the problem that the sources, which were demonstrated here to exist, are not in the article. Instead everyone participating here should take the time and just add those sources to improve the article and avoid further arguments, as I assume that Collectonian does not want the article deleted out of spite or personal preference. That said, I decided to be bold and close this discussion under WP:SK and WP:SNOW so that we can all concentrate on improving the articles rather than wasting any more time on a discussion where the result is clear even to the nominator. Regards So Why 12:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engadget

Unnotable website. Fails WP:WEB and little more than an advertisement for the site. Failed endorsed prod; prod removed by admin under reason of "not promotional, & the Apple stock price story was a major event & there should be multple sources for it." Only so called sources for anything are Engadget itself, which is a blog. Nothing to back claim that it has "won several awards" nor that it meets any WP:N nor WP:WEB. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Engadget has an Alexa traffic rank of 1,445, higher than its rival Gizmodo. This makes Engadget the most popular gadgets blog in the world. It's also been directly involved in enough events and controversies to warrant an article. Pretzels^Talk! 21:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexa ranks are NOT a criteria of notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Second that. Dubidub (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Pretzels on all points. LinguistAtLarge 21:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of xyr points have any basis in our policies and guidelines, note. So your rationale, as also the rationales of Neurolysis and Dubidub, have no weight at all, in fact. Cite sources to show that this web site, like any other subject here, has been independently documented in depth by identifiable people with reputations for fact checknig and accuracy. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not an in-depth report on Engadget, but it puts Engadget alongside Business Week, USA Today, PC World and CBS News as peers. Could it help reference the article?
    This is the second annual event that ShowStoppers will produce in Berlin at IFA, continuing press activities that began with IFA 2008. During 2008, ShowStoppers co-produced US press panels at the IFA International Press Preview in Majorca. Press panels in Berlin featured journalists and bloggers from Business Week, USA Today, Crunchgear, PC World, CBS News, eWeek, engadget, technologizer, Into Tomorrow and Robert Scoble.
    LinguistAtLarge 04:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here are some more possible sources: Site of the week: Engadget (PC Magazine), Engadget's Ryan Block and Peter Rojas To Team On New Startup (Not about Engadget directly), When blogs get scoops: Engadget and CNET, Engadget Gets Facelift, Gives Gifts, Engadget seeks to regain trust after Apple blunder. LinguistAtLarge 05:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here's one more source: Netbytes: Rapid-fire gadget blogs "More than 100,000 people are in Las Vegas for this week's Consumer Electronics Show, which is the highlight of the year for gadget freaks. But many more people who can't make it will be following the press conferences online at Engadget. Editor-in-chief Ryan Block usually blogs the main events live, with plenty of pictures. It's a hugely popular site. Last year, after it briefly carried an incorrect story about delays to Apple products based on an internal email, Apple's share price dropped by 3%. Not many publications have that sort of power." Now, the sources just have to be added to the article. LinguistAtLarge 05:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Also agree with Pretzels. — neuro^(talk) 21:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but not solely per above. A simple search in gNews shows that Engadget is frequently referenced by many mainstream print and web media outlets, including coverage of the blog itself (see [12]). Notability is easily established. MuZemike (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all the Google News hits are links for this site, not about this site. By that argument, my blog is notable too. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessarily. In my example above for instance, if the blog writers are subject-matter experts (in this case search engine optimization), then their may be considered reliable per WP:SPS (provided, of course, they are writing expert-related pieces and not some immature drabbling). MuZemike (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think sources are needed to show that they are, since Google News regularly pulls up very non-WP:RS blogs and forum postings along with real news sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've missed Collectonian's point entirely (although it's good to see that at least one editor is putting in the effort to make a proper case, for which I thank you). The point is that the web pages that xe is seeing don't document the web site. They refer to it. As such, they aren't sources for an encyclopaedia article, because they contain no reliably documented facts about the subject. It is evidence of actual sources that is required here. Citing just two independent sources that document this web site in depth — its history, ownership, purpose, and so forth — would do. The article currently has none, the nominator has clearly made an effort to look for some on Google News and come up with none, and no-one here opining keep has cited a single one. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Huh? This is clearly a very notable website. Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An opinion of speedy keep requires the most supporting evidence, not the least as you have given here. It has to show that the nominator is acting in bad faith, for starters. A bare assertion that something should be speedily kept is actually the opposite of that. A nominator who has looked at the independent of the sources, and looked at what can (or cannot) be found by Google News, is clearly acting in good faith, and puttnig the project policies and guidelines into practice. I recommend that you follow the nominator's good example. Put policy into practice and make an argument that actually holds water with respect to Wikipedia:Deletion policy: cite multiple in-depth independent reliable sources to show that a properly sourced neutral article can be written and maintained. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. No where in WP:SK does it say that the nominator has to be acting in bad faith. When the nomination has a snowball's chance in hell, that's grounds for Speedy Keep. And I'm amazed how frequently editors push WP:RS with total disregard for WP:UCS. I don't even read Engadget and I know it's a very notable website. I dread the day when Wikipedia gets so uptight that someone's gonna want "1 1 = 2" cited by a verifiable, reliable, independent source. And that's not an "if", that's a "when". --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:WEB. Certainly on point 3, possibly on 1. (Since I'd be suprised if they haven't won some sort of major award at some point). Bfigura ^(talk) 23:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin closure by Ecoleetage reverted by me, on the grounds that 2 hours of AFD discussion is not enough, especially since there are outstanding unanswered requests for sources in the discussion (to which I've added some more), and that there is no grounds for speedy keep given that the nomination is clearly a good faith one. Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Strong and speedy keep The reversion of the NAC was inappropriate. No one accused this of being a bad faith nomination, so the assertion questioning the value of the nomination is silly. Anyone who reads the article will see this site is owned by Time Warner, one of the world's most important and influential media giants -- this is not some middle school student's blog, but a significant web source by a significant company. Problems with references can be fixed in editing -- that is not the purpose of AfD. The site's influence within its sector has already been affirmed by the previous Keep !votes in this section, and attempts at speedy deletion and prodding were already swatted away. This article is on a one-way trip to preservation -- whether it is closed in two hours or two weeks, notability is affirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the AfD opened at 21:04 on 16 December and was closed as a non-admin closure at 02:52 on 17 December. How did that become two hours? Ecoleetage (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Speedy keep is not limited to bad faith (its numbered criteria are introduced with "include", not "are limited to") and explicitly references WP:SNOW, which is obviously applicable. There is a consensus. The fact that it's been reached in hours not days indicates the strength of that consensus. Bongo matic 03:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Agree with all of the above. Johnfos (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This easily passes WP:RS and WP:N. It has ample coverage in multiple third party sources. This should have been closed already. Undead Warrior (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Uncle G is correct about what is required for a "speedy keep". As for the call for third-party reliable sources, here goes:
Sources that discuss the subject in at least some depth include:
- an article in Forbes
- an article in Wired
- an article in Macworld
- (not online) Collins, John. "Blog of the week www.engadget.com", Irish Times, 2007-05-25, p. 7.
- No byline. "Internet site of the week", Bangkok Post, 2005-08-31.
- Copeland, Michael V. (2007-11-12). "The blogs of war", Fortune, 156 (10): 22. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Paul but Uncle G is 100% wrong because he stated the NAC was inappropriate "on the grounds that 2 hours of AFD discussion is not enough" -- either Uncle G needs a new wristwatch or he is using WP:IAR in regard to the basics of telling time! LOL. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme KEEP as the now proffered sources show the article meets all requirements of WP:N and the website surpasses the requirements of WP:WEB. With the greatest respects to Collectonion, whose works I admire, this article is a keeper. Again, and with respects, I recommend an early closure to this AfD as WP:Snow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, not a single one of those proffered sources are in the article itself, and somehow I suspect that when it gets its snow closure, they will still not be there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOLED

Subject already covered in Organic light-emitting diode I do not believe the subject merits a separate article Dubidub (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is along the hall. Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not necessary to merge the two articles since the SOLED article does not add to what is already covered in the OLED article. Dubidub (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Red Rose

Nothing notable about it TheXenocide (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystalballery. MuZemike (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in total agreement with the nom. No assertion of notability. No sources. Complete prognostication. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor film yet to be made, no notable participants even. Note - the Swedish Wikipedia does not have an article on this. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Purdy

AfDs for this article:

Non notable actor. Article apparently fails WP:BIO and WP:N. No additional verified career information since 'notable' role in 2001 short film (as per IMDb EL). Snowy 1973 (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non notable who fails WP:BIO etc. I can't see the previously deleted version but I doubt there is much stopping this as removed as a repost. Nuttah (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution (Moth song)

Non-charting songs, no sources outside YouTube. Nothing to merge/redirect, really, as it's all unsourced, and the qualifier makes the Revolution song an unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever, and I can't find any reliable sources which either talk about the song itself or any charting evidence either. Raven1977 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger Than My Imagination

Just a track listing, and unlikely to be anything more. No assertion of notability beyond "it exists"; no independent coverage. -- Mark Chovain 20:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a second album - same story.-- Mark Chovain 20:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Albums are by notable artists, and while that doesn't inherently make them notable, there do seem to be a couple sources for these, at least. Start with the reviews in the infoboxen, those should be good ways to expand. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep An officially released album from a notable artist is enough to have its own article. Rtyq2 (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#Albums, there were 2 reviews from reliable sources pre nomination. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close No reason to delete given. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bermudadreieck

See disk page of article DaSch (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an actual reason to delete this? Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close Close and take it to pages that needs translation and the Cleanup part The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"short stub, less information, orphan, misstranslation from de.wp" --DaSch (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is nobody who would take care of this article and I do not want to. --DaSch (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those is a reason to delete the article, if it's a place that really exists. If the place doesn't exist at all, that would be a reason to delete; if the article can't be improved, that might be a reason to redirect it somewhere else; if the information is inaccurate that's a reason to list it for cleanup. But Wikipedia doesn't delete things just because they're stubs. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop Dogg Presents Christmas In Tha Dogg House

WP:CRYSTAL violation that has been copied from someone's blog. If this page is deleted, Snoop dogg presents christmas in tha dogghouse' should follow per CSD G8 (R1). It was a page of basically the same content that I redirected to this one. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 (and the associated redirect unless a substantial revision occurs) or convert to a redirect with possibilites.Synchronism (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio found by CorenSearchBot. LinguistAtLarge 19:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G12 per CorenBot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable release, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. Xihr 01:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above comments don't apply to the current articlek, since the album is no longer crystal or copyvio,
Keep: The album has been released (WP:CRYSTAL no longer applies) and I've tidied the article and added a reliable source. --JD554 (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oh god we can't keep this. JBsupreme (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearing in my that this is not a vote, what are your reasons for not wanting this kept? What Wikipedia policies/guidelines does it not meet? --JD554 (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not copyvio or crystal and the release has already been covered by exclaim!, Ananova, MTV, Seattle Times, Newsroom America etc. etc. It'll probably pick up some reviews once the hacks come back from turkey-eating. 86.44.26.72 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?

AfDs for this article:

Is a paragraph-length mention in US News and World Report, and a brief TV interview, really enough to support this article? *** Crotalus *** 19:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I feel that it easily meets WP:N. US News and World Report is one of the leading news weeklies in the US, and an article mention from that, combined with a mention on Fox News should be more than enough with regards to sources. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "a mention on Fox News"? Being unaware of WP:BK doesn't make for a convincing argument. --dab (𒁳) 12:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Tony Blankley pending substantiation of WP:BK. --dab (𒁳) 12:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is nothing in policy that has set a minimum number of sources. The two cited are more than enough to verify the book exists and that it is notable enough to garner attention from national media. What more do you want? 23skidoo (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Labor day celebrations

Indiscriminate list of festivals that happen to occur on Labor Day. hbent (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a great resource for people trying to find Labor Day events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.175.83 (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually has potential, and is all of a week old. By the way, it is common for festivals to be held quite specifically on Labor Day. Give it six months anyway. Collect (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is a directory of links of festivals. The non festival information is a bad cut and paste out of teh Labor Day article. The only potential I see is for it to grow into a large link farm -- Whpq (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - article has been significantly improved whilst it is at AFD - nice work. (Early close) Nancy ^talk 10:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Louisa Martindale

Non-notable person. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a MD who also received the CBE for her medical work (and also Fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians & the Royal Society of Medicine) and with three published books, is certainly notable. ( The article is excessively detailed, concentrating upon the relatively unimportant details of her personal life, and not her professional accomplishments, but that can and will be fixed by editing. Though one of the sources seem to be family bio, there are at least 2 other good secondary sources. I am not sure of the rationale behind this nomination. I moved it per MOOS to Louisa Matindale. DGG (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, although I would note a possible COI in that one of those secondary sources was apparently written by the original author of the article, User:Val Brown. JulesH (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--that COI is there, sure, but it is minor, IMO, and does not take away from the subject's notability. I took DGG's cue and edited some. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Per DGG. — neuro^(talk) 22:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly I am in the minority on this one. What I read in this article is basically: "She was born, she worked, she wrote some books." It may be notable that a woman was awarded the CBE, but this is not even mentioned in the article other than as a set of letters after her name. If there is notability here, the article needs a COMPLETE rewrite to prove it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, minority, maybe. I'll grant you that it was not a well-written article, and not footnoted, but CBE, and books, and female surgeon, that makes googling her real easy, and it did not take me long to dig up a considerable number of books. But it's heavily rewritten now, and the references are there to prove her notability, I believe. I'm glad your AfD brought this article to my attention; I'm going to read her autobiography. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — While there is a clear conflict of interest, as long as no questionable behavior is occurring as a result, it's OK. The book he wrote would qualify as a reliable source; however, there needs to be more out there. MuZemike (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike, what book? it's her book, and she wrote a half a dozen. As for COI, sure, her biographer got this started, but there's plenty out there (just go look for yourself). Now, questionable behavior, I don't know...Martindale was a lesbian...were you thinking hanky-panky kind of questionable? Drmies (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the book written by Brown (who is also editing this article). I also doubt there is any hanky-panky going on regarding someone who has been dead for over 40 years. MuZemike (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG and others above. Well-sourced, sufficient coverage to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Wojtczak (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources unrelated to the subject and the CBE give it notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No issue about notability as shown above. This is pretty clear-cut. Collect (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the research I did when writing Eleanor Davies-Colley, female surgeons were very rare at that time, and this article is therefore important in the history of British surgery. She has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and I expect many other references will exist which are not available online. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is kept, then it ought to be renamed to lose the academic title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been moved. The reason for the odd title is that this Louisa Martindale's mother, of the same name, is also notable, but the article on her (if there ever was one) seems to have been deleted somewhere along the line. If anyone can find the other deleted article, it should probably be reinstated as she also has an ODNB entry. I fear I don't have time to work on this now. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Val Brown also created an article at Mrs Louisa Martindale which was speedy deleted; I assumed it was a previous version of this one, but that may be the article you're looking for. JulesH (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JulesH. I've recreated the article at Louisa Martindale (feminist) and tidied it up a bit. I'll notify the creator. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Cooper

I have doubts about this person's notability, WP:Notability (people), and think that it may be promotional, particularly since (a) the article indirectly purports to have been written by the person who is its topic (because the metadata provided with the image of the movie poster says so) and (b) her crowning achievement appears to have been her appearance in the film "Hidden", which by the article's acknowledgment was small and, indeed, while the co-star Harri Kettumäki is listed in IMDB, this film isn't. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible hoax, and unverifiable at any rate; I have been unable to verify that the TV drama "Hidden" was nominated for the award identified in the article. See google search of Royal Television Society's web site here. Nominations are listed on the pages for each year of awards, but I can find no trace of this show. Also no results relevant to it in first three pages of UK-specific google search for the title and words "TV drama". Also don't seem to be able to find anything in a search for "hidden drama tampere finland" (without quotes), using the location of shooting given by the personal web site. As of this message, her personal web site shows a counter suggesting it has only been viewed 80 times, so was quite possibly set up very recently. JulesH (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a Hoax. Couldn't find anything to verify it or Hidden and the imdb link on the personal website just goes to to the main page. —Sandahl 20:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy as this isn't obvious enough of a hoax. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Re-Write There seems to be the info out there from a basic google search, but this needs an extensive re-write and some external sources cited. [User:TorstenGuise|TorstenGuise]] (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide some specific information? Thus far my experience is that there isn't any pertinent information to be found via Google. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails significant coverage criteria. She is just not discussed enough by independent sources. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Even if it is not a Hoax, the subject seems to be a NN actress, who has appeared in a film, which (despite nomination for an award) has no article. At best it is an advert. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Bold redirect by me. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Without Wings (live version)

Merely a live version of Flying Without Wings, not notable and can be mentioned on the main Flying Without Wings article Pyrrhus16 (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold and redirect it. Lugnuts (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to So You Think You Can Dance (Season 4) finalists. Nothing changes since previous AFD, so I'm closing this as a redirect as per common practice, anything worth mentioning like the injury can be merged. Mgm|^(talk) 13:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica King

AfDs for this article:

Nothing has changed since the previous nomination. Nothing in this article couldn't suffice in So You Think You Can Dance (Season 4) finalists; the only notability the article suggests is that, unlike other contestants, she was injured. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 16:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E. Nothing this person has done is notable outside of the show, so by Wikipedia policy and convention, she deserves nothing more than a mention on the related show's page. Delete is clear in this case. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Losing contestants on reality shows are not generally notable & there's nothing else here. DGG (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everyone else. Hasn't done anything notable outside of the show. SKS2K6 (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything but Mine

Unsourced, uncharted: fails WP:NSONGS. —Kww(talk) 17:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album, fails WP:SONGS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above. Not independently notable per WP:SONG. Eusebeus (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable release, as per WP:SONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seregon O'Dassey

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Seregon O'Dassey

Actress without major roles or press buzz. Gsearch not showing notability; gnews gives just two passing mentions. IMDb lists only bit parts (the "lead role" in Ghostwatcher 2 was listed 10th in the actor listing for the film at IMDb.) Autobiography issues don't help. Prod contested by subject of article. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WPBIO. --fvw * 16:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable living subject, and badly written (the latter can be fixed, but it raises concerns about who wrote it ~~(could she have wrote it herself?)~~We know she wrote this herself). ~-F.S-~(Talk,Contribs,Online?) 16:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's claiming on the article talk page that she's letting others use her wikipedia account. I've added a note saying this isn't a good idea, but I'm not seeing the relevant policy page to point her to. Anyone remember where it's at?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO as far as I can see. COI as well. — neuro^(talk) 17:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ENTERTAINER.—Sandahl 20:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problems in letting my publicist do her job; it's what I pay her to do. However if it is against the rules I will have her write something from her own account. I understand I'm not Jennifer Aniston or the like, but please remember at one time in her life she was fighting for credibility too. If one does a bit of research they will find that there is more to me than 4 or 5 credits on one little movie website. In addition, I have 2 (possibly 3-funds pending) films shooting this spring, and for some reason I can't get False Face listed on imdb. However, I believe after 13 years and many published magazines, I've earned a little bit of notoriety. And NO, it doesn't matter what anyone says, I did NOT write the article myself. I will inform those who want to write an article from now on to not copy what is on my website. I apologize for that. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeregonODassey (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have your publicist read WP:COI before writing anything on Wikipedia.

Any chance you can provide some online links to some of the published magazines about you?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Online links to some of the published magazine articles about her are as follows: http://www.topix.com/content/trb/2008/07/false-face-star-seregon-odassey-hopes-her-indie-horror-flick-goes-far http://www.screamqueen.com/04-06.shtml http://maverickmag.com/Seregon_ODassey_from_New_York_New_York__633603285777893856_model.htm http://bluedressmovie.com/2008/10/seregon-odassey/ http://www.ozami.net/forums/showthread.php?p=126766 http://store.vampirella.com/vamcommag6li1.html

Credits to her name in previous movies:

http://www.reelzchannel.com/person/122514/seregon-odassey http://www.netflix.com/RoleDisplay/Seregon_O_Dassey/30035361 http://www.dvdempire.com/exec/v4_list_cast.asp?userid=-1&cast_id=317082&site_id=4&site_media_id=0 http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/findresults_actor.asp?search=Seregon O'Dassey http://videoeta.com/movie/75874 http://hollywood.premiere.com/video/movies/Ghostwatcher_2/#34156 http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/moviepit/search/g

The above indicated websites prove that Seregon is a credited actress-well enough that should you search her name- these sites identify and sell distributed movies that she has been credited on. These websites could not have been written by her nor her publicist. Their information is presented based on the credit listings of the particular film. Therefore, she has been credited by the FILMMAKERS accordingly. If a filmmaker specifies a credit to her, how can Wikipedia determine these were 'bit parts?' Obviously the filmmakers titled her differently than Wikipedia believes. There are many articles that prove she has press buzz. She has been in many highly public magazines to include Stuff, Playboy, and Maxim- in which she was within the top 100 women in 2004 and 2005. Also she has interviewed with Angry Princess, 411, Dark Walls, Expulsion, and Backstage Magazine, to name a few, all internationally published magazines are available on backorder only and not available online. Her television roles include the History Channel, One Life to Live, Law and Order and Sex in the City (and that's not even the complete list!). I know she did not write the article, and know that she deserves the credit as indicated by the sites I mentioned as well as the article related to her. Seregon and I have known each other for two years now. We are both actresses who work very hard to get the credits and recognition that we have. Seregon has been a wonderful person to me and other associates that we have in common. I have requested for her to consider a role in a project I am working on for next year. She has agreed and we are working on obtaining the necessary rights to proceed and release it on the Writer's Guild. I feel that these are plenty reasons for this debate to be discontinued and the article to remain. I am not sure what Wikipedia considers 'major roles' considering everyone has to start somewhere, but am clearly disturbed that whomever the mediators are, appear to make their decision based on interpretation of select websites and further slandered her name by insinuating she wrote the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyj624 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional information for your review: http://www.screamqueen.com/04-06.shtml

Add: Horror actress Seregon O'Dassey. Ghostwatcher 2; False Face; Teeth of Beasts (post production); False Face 2 (pre-production); Vampyre (pre-production, http://medicineshowcinema.squarespace.com/); Vampirella Magazine August 2004 "Luna Chick" pages 35 and 50; Playboy "Employee of the Month" April 2006, page 18; Fangoria Magazine page 23.

http://store.vampirella.com/vamcommag6li1.html

http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/ghostwatcher2.php

http://pipl.com/directory/tags/Horror%20Movies%20Bloody%20Disgusting.com

http://www.aeolia.net/playboy/pb-o.htm

http://www.ajwcelebrityservices.com/Female_Celebrity_Roster.html

http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0374201/maindetails

http://www.topix.com/content/trb/2008/07/false-face-star-seregon-odassey-hopes-her-indie-horror-flick-goes-far —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyj624 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the enchanting wizard of rhythm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wochende (talk • contribs) 15:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... Theserialcomma (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article since then in the light of additional references. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vals

Doesn't fulfil WP:MUSIC criteria. --fvw * 16:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two articles about this band in The Belfast Telegraph, one of which was already cited, and another I added to the article just now. Keep, since the band meets WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, plus there's a bit of conflict of interest to boot.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - article has been improved, nom has withdrawn Nancy ^talk 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every Young Man's Battle

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Every Young Man's Battle

No evidence of notability. No real claim to notability either, but references to the "success" of its predecessor and the fact there was a "spin-off" makes me inclined to think it may have been successful and therefore notability may be demonstrable. Dweller (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~. Should be marked as unreferenced not AfD. gnews "Every Young Man's Battle". LinguistAtLarge 16:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Changed speedy keep to keep, because it was pointed out that I was misusing speedy keep. LinguistAtLarge 16:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Reviews by the Rolling Stone – Atlanta Journal – and Boston Globe, to name a few and shown here [13], does tend to give credence to Notability. Also ranked at #69, for its genre at Amazon.com, which is impressive. I’ll cite the Rolling Stone’s article in the piece and see what happens. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added two more references as well. LinguistAtLarge 16:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator requests speedy close. Article now well verified. A good result, thanks all. --Dweller (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Four square. Anyone wishing to merge can find the content in the page history. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two square

Contested PROD. Some game made up by some kid in some school somewhere. About as notable as I am. Delete. role^player 15:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge and Redirct to Four square as a derivative of that game. --Pmedema (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Four square and Redirect to Four square. I have heard of the game before, and it is a somewhat popular alternative to four square if I am not mistaken. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 19:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two square is also missing citations, and those will be needed. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 19:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I played this a lot in 4th grade with my friends. Jonathan321 (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—This is not a valid keep rationale. Someone somewhere had to play this game for them to think of creating the article, but this does not necessarily mean that it meets the inclusion criteria at all. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a variant of four square, so it lives on the Four square regional page now.--Sean Effel (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as the consensus has both determined the notability of the subject and provided reliable sources verifying this notability. The article will benefit from editing and the addition of this new information. Regarding COI, User:Paul Boutin has been inactive on Wikipedia for over two years. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boutin (journalist)

Non-notable writer; unsourced claims with "footnotes" to entire books; COI editing by one or more accounts believed to be the subject. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Failed PROD removed by admin with note: "sufficiently notable journalist==exact sources would help." Procedural nom - reasons listed are those from original prod. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he meets notability standards per WP:BIO, there is no need to meet the secondary criteria in WP:CREATIVE. In my opinion he is notable per WP:BIO basic criteria. See: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] LinguistAtLarge 15:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In-depth interview on NPR as shown here [19]. Looked to as expert as shown here [20]. I believe he meets our guidelines for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Regarding COI are we reading the same guidelines? First, it does not say anywhere it is prohibited. As long as the piece it is written in a NPOV position, no problem. Second, COI is not a valid reason for deletion of an article. However, if I have misread the guideline I apologize and would ask that you point me to the area I overlooked. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Linguist and Shoessss. Not much more to say, I agree with them. — neuro^(talk) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources. Collectonian actually proposed this for speedy as A7; Orange Mike changed it to a prod, which I removed, because i thought it would pass here. DGG (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provided the refs in here are copied to the article (either as ref or in further reading). Also "unsourced claims with "footnotes" to entire books" is a contrast in terms. Something that is unsourced cannot have footnotes to a book, the mere fact of pointing to a book, means it's supposed to be a source. The idea that they didn't mention a page number is hardly a reason for deletion and can be fixed by editing. Heck, we could even ask Cory Doctorow for the exact page number if we have to. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bangpakok Wittayakom School

This place is not notable to be added in encyclopedia the page should be deleted BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Most schools are inherently notable. Wikipedia:IHN, Wikipedia:Notability (Buildings, structures, and landmarks), Wikipedia:Notability (Schools). LinguistAtLarge 15:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. We consider all secondary schools to be notable. This one will have greater difficulties in sourcing than any others, but that is just cultural bias. DGG (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (Schools) has not been accepted as a guideline, and a brief search of education-related news sources only returns results mentioning the school as part of yearly admission statistics reports. (This year 1,503 students applied for admission in the Mathayom 1 level, the twenty-second-highest among governmental schools.) I don't think of the school as being very well-known, but it is a large school nonetheless, with over 3,000 students. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 18:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am adding a major competition win from here. This is a major school with over 3,000 students that is over-subscribed and that educates to age 18. It is not surprising that a Thai school is not well represented on the internet in English. However, we must avoid systemic bias and this is a case where we should await the finding local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. Winning a national state-organized competition makes the school notable and it is likely more sources can be found in Thai. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary schools are inherently notable and other editors have shown this is more notable than average. Edward321 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Banpresto original characters

An unreferenced list with characters from Super Robot Wars. The main article is already deleted and all the other elements of "Banpresto Originals" that were nominated, were all deleted. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Robot Wars F Originals is may be also a speedy delete candidate under G8. Magioladitis (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An informative combination article of the sort that should be strongly encouraged. If similar articles were deleted, then fortunately we don't go by precedent, and we can recreate those also. WEDIDITIBEFORE is not an aguement. We've done many wrong things before. Can be sourced from the primary work. No other reason given for deletion.DGG (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — this is nothing but original research and a textbook example of the C-word. MuZemike (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's trivial cruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Original research can be cut out. The combination: character, nickname, voice actor is easily verifiable and encyclopedic. The same should have been applied to the other combo list. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to remind you that this is a video game we are talking about but I am also not sure which one! How do we know that this characters "are thew original characters were created by Banpresto"? Any reference for that? Also if you read the list you'll see that these characters are mainly NPCs! -- Magioladitis (talk)

Delete: What we've done before is relevant as our actual practice, which is documented in guidelines such as WP:NOT and WP:N. And our common practice suggests a consensus that articles like this do not belong, because they lack reliable third-party sources, and because they're written entirely from an in-universe perspective beyond what is required for a concise summary of the game's plot. Even on a gut level, a bunch of supporting or minor characters is probably not notable. If we didn't have a notability guideline, it's articles like these that would inspire one. Randomran (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Randomran. No reliable sources = no article. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creat profile

Doesn't meet WP:BIO for athletes. --fvw * 13:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a test page, from the title. But yes, the content does not relate to a notable individual. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be related to Zlatko Kartal who is as far as I can tell is a non-notable amateur athlete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raitchison (talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Test page, and even if not, the subject is non notable. — neuro^(talk) 17:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctorate in Economics, Management and Organization (DEMO)

A cooperation between universities for doctorates is not inherently notable, and I don't see anything that says this one is. --fvw * 12:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence of third-party sources writing about this program, other than trivial mentions. Furthermore, external links in article make it look like an advert; if it weren't an advert, why would we care about the campuses of the universities involved? Delete unless some references can be found. JulesH (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and of no discernable encyclopedic value. One of literally millions of educational courses available worldwide. andy (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per andy. Information can be preserved by incorporating it in the respective university articles and more general degree program articles, but a stand-alone article is unjustified. --Zlerman (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Faster Stripe

Non-notable, self-promotional. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. No sources. Graymornings_(talk) 12:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "sources" are required to make you and "community" happy? if you remove a page like this surely you would have to remove all film companies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riker666 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry forgot to sign, this is my first ever page creation, I should add that I have nothing to do with Go Faster just bought most of their Richard Herring DVDs Riker666 (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability is asserted or demonstrated. Searching also yields no independent, third-party, reliable sources. This fails WP:CORP and WP:N. There are several notable people associated with the corporation (according to the article) but I am not aware of any Wikipedia guidelines that indicate this confers notability on the company. There is nothing to indicate this article meets the inclusion criteria, so it should be deleted. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. Please keep entries like this, they are noteworthy and I leart more about them from reading the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.44.55 (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 86.146.44.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Go Faster Stripe are a notable organisation worthy of an entry within Wikipedia. They provide an excellent record of the works of some of the UK's most notable comics, whose works might otherwise be lost. I consider my DVD collection to have been significantly enhanced by Go Faster Stripes commitment to less commercial comedians, whose work is highly respected amongst their colleagues but less well known and less appealing to the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillHE (talk • contribs) 19:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— WillHE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment to visitors who may have heard about this discussion via a forum or mailing list. This is not a vote. Comments like the above two are unhelpful. If you would like to save the article, please find references to the company in reliable sources (online newspapers, etc.) The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There would seem to be no mentions of this company in the mainstream media, therefore I can only conclude that it fails to meet both WP:CORP and WP:N. --bigissue (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a young article, and there are references. The influential British comedy website Chortle has dedicated an article to them. [21] Ghits for '"Go Faster Stripe"' comedy is pretty impressive. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletel. All I found was that one Chortle page (besides ads)--and I dug through a dozen pages of search hits for "Go Faster Stripe." So, no references, only reference. That means that the "sources" required by this "community" are not up to snuff--regardless of the disdain expressed by some for this "community." Drmies (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. "- from WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riker666 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "Salford set for Sinha" only mentions the company in passing; "Go Faster Stripe are very good indeed" is a blog (maybe a good one, but it's still a blog); "Go Faster Stripe" is an entirely local (Cardiff) blog; this leaves two Chortle articles. That's not much. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anons shot themselves in the foot, really, by the comments you quote. Normally that would be ammunition for me. Yes, blogs aren't acceptable. Still, two Chortle articles. Give it a chance... The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I don't even mind that so much. I'm a teacher, I hear that sort of stuff all the time... If there were anything besides those two, there might be a better case for me, esp. since the two articles are really not substantially different. Can you dig anything else up? I was unable to. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What reference from websites would you expect to be on this page other than the list of comedians that have products on there, for example I had a look at the Music For Nations page, an independent record company that do not exist anymore and went under before the web really kicked off, there is just a roster which is what I would expect to find surely this page is the same, and independent filmmaker with a list of its products? Riker666 (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more references that have been printed in reliable sources the better, especially where GFS is the primary subject. The two Chortle articles are good (even if they are similar, there are two of them). As for other articles you find, we have a guideline: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for above info, who now decides whether this page goes or stays does one person do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riker666 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral administrator (who has not been involved in the discussion or the page) will look at this discussion and make the decision. The future looks bleak... keep looking for sources! The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many references do I need to find? I've just added 2 more that I think are from reliable sources (NOT BBC, Groggy Squirrel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riker666 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Refs certainly improve the article but it would be better still if they were focused on the subject rather than the acts. GFS get nothing more than a passing mention in many of the ones that have been added, so they do not really add value. Quality not quantity is what is required. The tone of the article could do with addressing – needs to be more encyclopaedic. What kind of compromise would artists need to make otherwise and why? Sounds like PR speak to me. History section reads like a blog. --bigissue (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it does need some serious editing!--Kid Robbo (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the lead section and formatted the refs, removing a couple that added no value and one dead link. However, I still have serious doubts as to the notability of the company as media coverage is generally incidental, i.e. articles about acts mentioning they have a DVD produced by GFS. Go Faster Stripe has not been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", therefore fails WP:CORP. --bigissue (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — article now looks like establishes notability via multiple independent sources. MuZemike (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a not insignificant amount of time trying to improve the article and the simple fact is, this is a non-notable company. They have produced less than 15 DVDs, none of which are available through any major (or minor) retailers. In addition, I believe that the sources are insufficient for WP:CORP. Therefore the article should be deleted. --bigissue (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. Just a minor correction: it seems four DVDs are available through amazon.co.uk [22] The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have been clear – I meant highstreet, walk in, pick it up off the shelves retailers. bigissue (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As they are primarily an internet mail order company you are not likely to pick them up the high street, by that definition items from artsits that are internet only should be removed from the wiki if I cant buy them in HMV?86.20.188.219 (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as improved. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) per WP:SNOW. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Lintsen

Non-notable Dutch professor. No significant publications outside minor scholarly works. No sources. Graymornings_(talk) 11:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably speedy. --fvw * 11:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Full professor at Eindhoven University of Technology, a major school--I think the major engineering School in its country. Three published book, a number of articles. An authority in his field, meeting WP:PROF. A scholar is notable precisely because he publishes scholarly works. Furthermore, he is a member of his countries national academy; I am not sure we give the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNWA) the same standing as the Royal Society--if we do, it's an automatic pass; even if not, it's a very major factor in notability. So is being founder of a national level professional organization, and the award from the government. DGG (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mostly per DGG. Article meets WP:PROF with the professor publishing many academic articles and papers. MuZemike (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject demonstrably meets WP:PROF and WP:N in general. — neuro^(talk) 22:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By the authority vested in me by a computer and internet connection, and in the interest of countering anti-Dutch bias, and under WP:PROF #3, I declare that membership in the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences should give an automatic pass, just like fellowship in the Royal Society. With only 200 members under 65, 110 in the sciences, it is if anything more selective.John Z (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Dutchman, my appreciation to John Z. I agree with him about the Academy membership and with DGG about Eindhoven University being one of the two leading technological universities in The Netherlands (the other one being Delft University). The article needs some cleanup and some more references (especially for the "Companion in the Order of Orange-Nassau", I have no clue what a "companion" is in this connection, although the order is well known). I think I have seen a large review of one of his technological history of The Nethrlands book series in a major Dutch newspaper, but have no time to search for it right now. Still, should be easy to find more references online (I added 2 to the article), after all, the guy's in a technological field!
Keep. Agree with John Z regarding membership in the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences being enough to meet WP:PROF criterion #3.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, membership Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences may already be sufficient to pass criterion 3 of WP:PROF, but even if not, there is enough here to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:PROF (for which the academy membership is a significant contributing factor). Nsk92 (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that the refs are there and the article's more encyclopedic, I can see why this subject is indeed notable. I say keep it. By the way, John Z, I'm not sure there's any "anti-Dutch bias" on Wikipedia. I definitely don't have any - I've personally loved many a Dutchman. ;-) Graymornings_(talk) 02:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I was only 99% serious. Maybe a little less. :-).John Z (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aisake Ó hAilpín

Appears to have failed WP:Athlete at the time of article creation and certainly does now as subject did not compete at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Having now been de-listed from the Carlton Football club even though he was elevated to the senior list,he has not played a senior game. --VS ^talk 10:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A good example of why crystal-ballery when creating articles on sportspersons is a poor idea, particularly in the light of the rash of articles about not-yet notable Australian rules footballers picked up in the 2008 AFL Draft. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: satisfies primary notability criteria by being the subject of an hour-long documentary about him & his brother aired on a major TV station. Don't know enough about Gaelic sports to say if achievements there were notable. The-Pope (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Concerning his wider notability, his inclusion in the family documentary confirms his relationship with his notable footballing brothers, but I don't think sufficiently elevates his own claims. Murtoa (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable for being the subject of a documentary that has aired on TV. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Without sounding cute, it was his family that was the subject of the documentary, not Aisake. His status in the documentary was as as a brother of notable sporting identities, who was an AFL wannabe in his own right. His own AFL career has subsequently not come to fruition. Does that make him notable? Murtoa (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, perhaps "a subject of..." would have been a better choice of words. From the brief bits of watched on Youtube, Aisake is covered reasonably in-depth, and I wouldn't say that the attention he got was trivial. It should also be noted that the documentary in question won an IFTA award, before anyone plays the "non-notable documentary" card. There is also ample secondary coverage of this person. It is my opinion that this one just falls over the line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Benjamin

Failed WP:Athlete before at the time of creation and certainly does now as subject did not compete at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Having now been de-listed from the Carlton Football club his two seasons with the club were interrupted by injuries and he did not play a senior game. --VS ^talk 10:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fairly obvious decision Aspirex (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --VS ^talk 23:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, yet another example of an article on an Australian rules footballer created before any notability is established per WP:ATHLETE. WP:ATHLETE is a very low bar and this subject fails to meet even it. The creators of these articles on AFL draft picks would be better placed to wait until WP:ATHLETE is met rather than attempting to foretell the future. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable. Agree wholeheartedly with Mattinbgn's sentiments. An example of the legacy of promoting a whole raft of draft might-be's, supposedly for reasons of "convenience". These articles should be noted for next year's debate. Murtoa (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But as I interpret WP:ATHLETE to be primarily criteria for inclusion, not for deletion, it is the lack of WP:RS references to prove notability outside of the 'played in a professional league' criteria that fails this article. The-Pope (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another AFL hopeful who came agonisingly close, but in the end did not end up making it. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt hermer

Weak assertion of notability so not speedyable. Unsourced and reads like a resume. McWomble (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless the source for the Best Restauranteur award can be produced, does not meet WP:BIO. --OliverTwisted 10:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some refs.- Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, evening standard is notable, but 1000? When did they become a vanity yearbook service?

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Destiny (a Jezreel V. mini-novel)

Delete: Self-published mini novel with no reliable sources, or significant google results. Oliver Twisted 09:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is sort of a WP:COATRACK for an article on this not notable author. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. --Pmedema (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. speedily deleted by me. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miles madison

This article asserts notability, but it may be that the person lacks that notability. The article may also be written by the subject of the article. Richard Cavell (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - assertion looks fake. It should be speedy deleted. Dekisugi (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 Probably not a hoax, but it's definitely an autobiography. The assertion of notability is very weak, and a search for sources returns very few related results. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable, unsourced autobiography. Matt (Talk) 08:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Use of the word 'notable' is not a meaningful assertion of notability, and nor is being a computer gamer. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Borderline A7, fails WP:N and WP:V. — neuro^(talk) 17:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigeum

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. RJaguar3 | u | t 07:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable neologism; and Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. I was in the process of nominating this when I hit an edit conflict and found that RJaguar3 had got there first. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NFTastic. Somebody's apparently bored in class. Graymornings_(talk) 08:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:N and WP:NFT Matt (Talk) 08:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find a speedy category for this, but it has to go. Obviously something made up one day - a specified day, in fact. How many words have birthdays? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree - does not meet WP:N and WP:NFT as mentioned above. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a neologism madeup by a college kid with too much time on his hands. I thought this was supposed to be the time for finals or something like that. MuZemike (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. it's snowing. StarM 13:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Fellowship and related redirect spamming

Seems like evangelizing to me (or at least POV pushing/sermonizing), especially given the creator of article's name. Also please delete the redirect page to the CF page, its really subjective opinioning. Wikipedia is not google, or a place to place one's sermons. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Also, a number of passages are taken directly from http://www.victorious.org/felwship.htm, a possible violation of copyright guidelines. JNW (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Updated with more redirect spamming, if you see any other ones in new pages creation, please add them. I have no time to watch too long. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant POV, evangelizing. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yup, that's pretty blatant--not even an attempt at producing an encyclopedic entry. Why no speedy? Drmies (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cause there's a deficiency of broad enough speedy tags (at least, that I know of/imo) for obvious but not always common cases and AfD makes it official if it's recreated. ProD usually isn't as fast as AfD (and isn't as reliable imo since anyone can remove it)ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete evangelizing Clubmarx (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis sermon doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Jmundo (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-encyclopaedic ramble from a pulpit. Is it snowing yet? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV pushing and preaching. Matt (Talk) 08:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an active Christian editor: delete, non-encyclopedic, unreferenced, and not needed to resolve incoming links (I have just removed two that were not significant). - Fayenatic (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious unencyclopedic POV pushing. McWomble (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ghastly images...non-encyclopaedic and unreferenced.Teapotgeorge^Talk 11:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite - The name 'Christian Fellowship' is commonly applied to individual church groups, especially in workplaces and universities. It would be good to have a general article about this subject, rather than the opinionated ramble currently in the article. The others can all go, though. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rewrite~~ changed to delete, see below. The term itself is notable but the evangelism has to go. Name change to correct capitalization, too. Graymornings_(talk) 11:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per the snowball factor. Regarding rewriting the article, a new article can be created after this one is deleted, but since this article has nothing worth saving, better to delete and rewrite than the try to "save" the article. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's christmaaaaaaaaaaaaaa- whoops, wrong queue. Unencyclopedic, POV, nothing much to rewrite, if it is required later the article can be recreated in a better fashion. — neuro^(talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with theseeker4. Also, delete spam redirects either way, as they are ambiguous/spammy/subjective opinions (ex. spirit filled church? Really? How POV can that be?). Can we have a SNOW close already? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We can always recreate the article if we feel we need to. For now, it's non-notable preachin'. Graymornings_(talk) 01:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the article a bit and removed most or all of the previous evangelistic view points This edit is much more neutral in Its approach to express the contemporary view of Christian Fellowship, although It needs more Input with content of fellowship in the work Place, Schools and in the general public . In time other edits will perhaps provide and change the format and or different Christian views on fellowship ... Merry Christmas PAW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiseandworship (talk • contribs) 05:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for having another go, but it is still not a suitable article for an encyclopedia. My view remains delete. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AD Village

notability not established. 2 "news" citations = no mention of company in site. Confusing how the salesforce.com thing links in when that page has no mention is this.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Totally non-notable, borderline spam. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Noian @Realkyhick How do I establish notability better? Please email or direct message me (e-mail address removed by Deor (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malouie (talk • contribs) 06:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Malouie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Removed the news links and removed the Salesforce.com reference. Anything else, guys? Appreciate your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malouie (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I can't find any references that would establish notability for this subject. As it is, it's advertising thinly disguised as a factual description of what the company does. Drmies (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Advertising. No news hits, no mentions elsewhere, no nothing. Definitely fails WP:CORP. Graymornings_(talk) 08:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like Duchaba deleted the comments of two editors. Diff here. I've restored them. Graymornings_(talk) 08:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Graymornings. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a fair portrait of a new start-up. As the company evolves, this article serves as an ongoing chronicle which will benefit the community in giving insights and reflective looks about a start-up 10 years after the initial ".com" boom and burst.Duchaba 01:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Duchaba (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
A. That's no reason for you to delete my remarks (just like I won't delete yours); B. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages or an ongoing chronicle--Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias have articles on things that are proven to be notable. "Fair" is not to be determined by the subject of the article (there's the objectivity issue...) Drmies (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to chronicle the history of a company. Would suggest storing this information on an Intranet or other internal records. If at some point this company becomes notable some of that information may have a place in an article here. Raitchison (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. I'll contact the creator on his talk page to explain WP:N. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bot even the assertion of notability, looks like spam to me. Raitchison (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- per the snowball factor. --Jmundo (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — blatant advertisement (here in Wikipedia, the term we use for this is spam). On top of the need to establish notability as mentioned above, this article needs a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic in tone. MuZemike (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Blatant WP:PROMO. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banking in Pakistan

Don't know WP policy on articles such as this, seems empty, frivolous, and seems like the original creator meant to create a "List of Banks in Pakistan" article (which there already is the seemingly incomplete template box for, so I don't know the need for an article like that), so nominating for deletion. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tolerate as a stub from which a sourced article can be written. WillOakland (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this requires expansion, not deletion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Cavell. Banking Pakistan has nearly 9 million Ghits, 36,000 Gnews hits, 30,000 Google Scholar hits and over 3,000 Google Books hits. Clearly a notable topic that can be properly sourced. McWomble (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article title is extremely note-worthy. --GP Pande 09:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. A principal part of a country's financial system is worth of note. Especially so because Islamic banking is quite different from traditional Western practice and its implemenations in different countries are quite different, and need further introduction to readers. NVO (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Ijanderson (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub in the group of Banking in [country] articles. Must be expanded and thoroughly reworked: content worthless in its present form. --Zlerman (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under A7 by User:WikiLeon. (non-admin closure) ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Heart English Bible

Does not establish notability. I'm sure there are at least 100 versions of the bible. Do we need an article on every "version" detailing their idiosyncrasies? I reason we don't, so since this article does not establish notability on its own (even public domain has lots of bibles, see This List for example) please delete. (also creator has a possible COI, see the name of the article creator) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might become notable in the long run, but it certainly isn't now (nothing shows up in google to support any kind of presence beyond mere existence). Drmies (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are more than 100 notable versions of the English bible alone, and ghey all are appropriate for articles. 1000, 1000, or whatever, we're not paper. Whether this one has received enough notice needs to be shown by references. I think it well may be, but there has to be something in the way of sources--its not automatic. DGG (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with most of what you say, DGG, except for the 'weak keep' part. I didn't find anything at all, but will reiterate that bible translations are easily made notable, so to speak. Perhaps you have better ways of finding references, and if they are found, I'm all for keeping this article. But as it stands, and since I couldn't find anything, this is not yet notable. BTW, Alex, I concur with you also on the nom's rationale. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I disagree with the nominator's rationale; many, many Bible translations and interpretations are notable. But this doesn't appear to be one of them. The article gives no indication of notability, or of the origin of the project (as opposed to the text). AlexTiefling (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. This Bible translation was published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press.[23] Generally, self-published sources do not make a book notable: were it issued by a standard publisher, I would cheerfully change to keep. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never said that notable bible versions couldn't be on wikipedia, I merely meant (I tried to not exaggerate so I toned the number down) that wikipedia doesn't need one on every version (notice the wording in nom), only notable ones, others can go in a list article (if at all, not sure). I stated that I felt this version didn't establish notability, so I'm at a loss on how my rationale is different, but regardless.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Richmond

Fails WP:BIO due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested prod on the grounds that either his business career or book were possibly notable, but I'm coming up with nothing in web searches on various combinations of "Jim Richmond", "James Richmond", "Frey Foundation", and "Against The Grain". Can't find the book on Worldcat or Google books; in article link seems dead. Jfire (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked a number of references and they were not this subject. My research did not verify notability and found that the authorship of at least one title attributed to him is in question. --Stormbay (talk) 18:23, 12 December 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 04:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine Harvey

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. No independent notability from the band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not established.Óðinn (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 December 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 04:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. She obviously has featured on some huge hit records with The KLF, and has released at least one album (Don't You Break My Heart, 1997) under her own name. I can't find anything that meets WP:MUSIC though, so notability in her own right is hard to establish. Redirect to The KLF, or perhaps The White Room. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also searched and have been unable to find sources about her, other than mentions in reviews about The White Room. So I suggest a redirect to that album article. (The article The KLF does not mention her.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created this page but if no-one else can find anything notable about her I will not argue the point. If she has not made any impact as a solo artist then she is unlikely to do so now. SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 11:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Orangemike - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC) (non admin)[reply]

The Origin of Chicken Butt

This article was proposed for deletion, but the tags were deleted by the page's author. In any case, this article is completely unsourced and there's nothing to indicate that any of it is true. TheLetterM (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Blatant misinformation, vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzor (Zoids)

This fictional topic does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The various pieces of content in merged article do not have to have real world context, or we could never write a single sentence about plot or characters. The statement refers to our general coverage of fiction in a group of articles or single article about a fiction--there has to be real world context in somewhere, unlike fansite. For material of characters/plot/background sourceable directly from the fiction, primary sources are preferred for plot description. Sop there';s no reason to delete rather than merge. And even if one thought otherwise, there would be no reason against a redirect. DGG (talk) 06:39, 12 December 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 04:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farzad Golpayegani

Non-notable Iranian musician; page author declined the prod. Has 3 albums produced, but not by notable labels. Only third-party source I can find is an online Iranian rock music site, which I hesitate to call a reliable source. Gnews has 0 hits for his name, and I see nothing suggesting notability anywhere else. Deletionismus (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Deletionismus (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The interview appears reliable enough for me, but that's still only one source. Even so, I'm tempted to err on the side of keeping. Any chance we could find out what label he's on? Powers ^T 23:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- His MySpace seems to say that he is unsigned, but this article is the source for that dubious assertion that he had the first heavy metal album under a label in Iran. Deletionismus (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 14 December 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 04:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsigned artist. Notability not established, per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarey Savy

Failed PROD and speedy nominations. Probable autobiography, and poorly written. Call me Bubba (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although poorly written, that doesn't constitute the necessity for deletion of an article. No reliable sources being cited or found myself on the subject, however, does lead me to believe that the article fails the notability guideline and thus should be deleted. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 04:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the author, who happens to have the same username as the subject's article (possible COI...), repeatedly violated WP:BLP by stating that he was the "close-" or "best-friend" of others, as in [24] and [25]. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 05:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable person with lack of reliable sources, possible conflict of interest due to article being created by Savy Sarey (talk · contribs). -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--yet another MySpace artist. There's no notability whatsoever here per WP:Band. Drmies (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't imagine why this wasn't speedied. 12 year old claims to be signed by Geffen? That would be big news. Pure hooey. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought I voted earlier but I must have goofed. Basically I mentioned that I tagged it for speedy deletion and then there are no valuable sources to be found about this 12 year old myspace singer. Themfromspace (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has been speedy deleted twice I believe, no notability, pure vanity autobio. Paste ^Talk 08:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I declined the most recent speedy because of the weak claims of importance, but then immediately prodded it with "There are enough claims of importance here to avoid an A7 speedy deletion, but gsearch not turning up notability. 0 gnews hits; 21 unique non-wiki ghits. Eliminate myspace and youtube, and there's just 2 hits left, neither of which shows notability". Nothing has changed since then to change my mind.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Geffen claim is highly likely to be a hoax, WP:COI, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. — neuro^(talk) 17:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Fabrictramp Was correct not to speedy it (although I deleted it under A7 a couple of days ago when it asserted no notability at all.) However the assertions are weak at best and overall there is not enought notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia Pedro : Chat 11:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - G3 (vandalism/obvious misinformation) seems to fit well here - Peripitus (Talk) 07:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mall Challenge

Easily fails WP:MADEUP; see "The Mall Challenge was invented by Adam Clash, Julian Mellor and Xavier Halliwell on the 5th of December, 2008". A prod was deleted (dear lord why don't we have a CSD tag for these things that doesn't rely on IAR?) so I've brought it here; enjoy. Ironholds (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Made up, non notable and non verifiable. (WP:MADEUP, WP:V, WP:RS) — neuro^(talk) 04:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - "Mall Challenge Records" for a day from now (Dec 16)? "was conducted from the 15th of December to the 19th of December 2008" ... future reporting? Hoax and therefore non-notable. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh, not necessarily. It was done in austraaaalia, mind you, and they're already a day ahead of the rest of us northern hemisphere people. Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Lacks reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Edison (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I can verify that the events described are factual, accurate and notable for our region, and am a witness to parts of the challenge. Incidentally, the 16th of December is almost over, and that has nothing to do with being in the southern hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.8.11 (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes it does; in the northern hemisphere it is the early morning of the sixteenth. Secondly; notable "for our region"; could you clarify that? Do you mean the mall, your small knot of friends, your town, what? Ironholds (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are from Australia, its 16:13 on the 16th of December 2008, check your time zones before saying it matters. I assume the user specifying 'our region' means Canberra. A 'Mall' is just a Shopping centre, we've simply adopted it as a generic term for this type of eating competition.

Exactly my point. I was replying to Moeron's comment that the 16th was in the future; to him (most likely a US/UK/CA editor) it is early morning of the sixteenth; to australians it is the late afternoon. Please see WP:MADEUP; your article appears to fall under this and as such is not a valid article for Wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't care when this is/was, it's not encyclopedic. It's not notable. It's not anything. Drmies (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:NOT, WP:MADEUP, WP:NOTE, etc. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NFT should really have its own CSD tag. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be speedied, but unfortunately no WP:MADEUP speedy criteria exist. It is not notable, if it is "notable in the region" then regional newspaper/etc. sources should be provided to demonstrate notability. Factuality is not a concern, notability is, which this clearly lacks. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Blatant WP:MADEUP. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MADEUP is not a speedy criteria. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but it should be, along with WP:HOAX. It'd save people a lotta time. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be and is are different things, however. Wikipedia has strict guidelines and policies on what constitutes other CSD categories; WP:NONSENSE, for example. Turning WP:MADEUP into a CSD category would cause all sorts of problems by making the deletion largely subjective rather than objective. Ironholds (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moderately Hasty Delete In my opinion, the WP:MADEUP category is severly outdated and belongs either in the DSA, CSD or FLP categories, although probably most suitable to DSA. This articles seems applicable to WP:RAIN, WP:ORNOT besides obviously WP:MADEUP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.8.11 (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a Canberra resident and occassional visitor of the Belconnen Mall, I suspect this is entirely made up.--Grahame (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AnaSpec but delete HiLyte Flour. So Why 11:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AnaSpec

Nothing here to support notability of this pharmaceutical supply company —G716 <^T·_C> 05:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because this is a product of AnaSpec - also nothing to deonstrate notability.:

—G716 <^T·_C> 05:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 05:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 05:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Neither the company nor the product have received significant coverage in any reliable sources, which is what is required by WP:CORP, the notability guideline that is relevant to both. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note that the company is covered substantially and not trivially or incidentally in multiple independent sources that are cited in the article's References section. I don't know about you, but in my book that passes WP:CORP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep anaSpec fairly widely known specialist company with two adequate references.DGG (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AnaSpec. I could find absolutely no significant real news coverage about this subject anywhere, anytime, anyhow that anyway describes this company/entity as anything remotely related to the "fairly widely known specialist company" described above. What are the independent, objective, third-party "adequate references" that help this article meet the most basic notability requirements? Flowanda | Talk 07:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the current article doesn't have much useful content, an article on this subject is probably warranted. Let's leave it and hope that someone comes in and builds this. --Mblumber (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AnaSpec as it seems to be a notable enough company and, as Mblumber wrote, an article is surely warranted, there's just not enough information present at this time for the article to seem complete. I will add an expansion tag. The article also has two highly credible references, so I am inclined to believe that the subject is notable enough. But Delete HiLyte Fluor as it does not seem to be a notable enough product on its own to warrant its own article. Move any key information to the AnaSpec article, if appropriate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Benches In The Leys School Chapel

This article has no real meaningful content; it's written in casual prose and is basically a list of benches. None of the CSD criteria really worked, so I'm hoping for a speedy here FlyingToaster 02:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing manageable could be inserted into The Leys School, the closest logical merge. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks much of a point, there is no reason this article should stay up. Rtyq2 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as it has not been the subject of 'significant coverage'. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on a lack of coverage... its nonnotable and has no sources for verification. Themfromspace (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete Are you kidding? A list of benches? How is this verifiable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to merge, no need to redirect. The best article name I've seen to come to AfD in a long time, mind! — neuro^(talk) 03:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete Could've gone with Nonsense or test page, and added a comment (and an admin hopefully would've deleted it based on a broad interpretation). Shows yet again though the deficiency of speedy tags though. There really needs to be db-unencyclopedic/db-other. Also, delete per WP:NOTE, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The speedy criteria are already interpreted more broadly than they were supposed to be. If people are going to expand on that, things get deleted speedily that should get proper discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on the basis that this is original research or at least unsourced. If there's a discussion of this in secondary sources, then an article could be recreated. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Age of the Five. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voices of the Gods

This character does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I see no actual research, original or summarizing, and no plot information, necessary or unnecessary. I see miscellaneous descriptive material which needs to be integrated into proper articles on this series if they ever get written. As its a best -selling author, i assume the books are important enough to be worth the coverage, but this sort of way of going about it is not helpful. I can't reply to the third sentence of the nomination, because I do not know what it means. DGG (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
improve, merge, redirect. Content should be saved for a rewrite. I was sorely tempted to !vote keep per nom. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'- there seems to be this belief that every major or major-ish character in a work of fiction is automatically entitled to an article. That's a lot of bunk. It leads to bad articles like this one, which has no sources and is just a reiteration of bits of the plot because there's nothing to be said about the real-world impact of the subject. Reyk _YO! 03:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if the term is searchable enough, something I cannot judge. But yeah, sheesh, does every fictional sneeze and fart deserve an article on WP? Drmies (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: No luck trying to find independent notability on Google. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putinjugend

Inherently POV title: it compares modern youth movements in Russia with the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth). Inappropriate as a redirect or disambiguation page, and I doubt it's possible to write a reliably sourced article on the term itself, so it should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A disambiguation page does not require references. But I included three reliable sources. More can be provided if needed.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - wow, that was fast! OK, I probably should have looked for sources before nominating for deletion... oops. I'll leave this open a little longer to see if anyone else has anything to add, but if not I don't mind withdrawing this AFD. Terraxos (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw then.Biophys (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATP, WP:NEO and WP:NOTE. DonaldDuck (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and expand on the article pages. The dab page shouldn't discuss the merits or existence of the term. As the sources indicate, Putinjugend has indeed been applied sarcastically to two organizations (and the article is therefore not ipso facto "inherently POV"); however, the use of the term should be discussed and sourced in the articles about these organizations, and not on the dab page. As a precedent, the similar term Lukamol redirects to Belarusian Republican Youth Union and is discussed there. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Nashi (youth movement). There is no evidence (i.e. sources) in Walking Together which describe it as Putinjugend. All in all, in response to User:DonaldDuck, I think it's a funny name in that an organisation which is promoting healthy living, civic duties and above all, a Russia for Russians, is compared to Hitler, whilst an organisation which evolved out of union of Bolsheviks and skinheads, actively calls for a new Russian empire, is 5000% against American foreign policy, etc (and has a flag with resemblance to NAZI symbols) is supported by the Western media as the darlings of Russian democracy, and worse, as the future of Russia. Of course, that line the line taken by journalists (you would be hard pressed to find scholars talking about Nashi for example in such ways as journos); but then again it says more about the people themselves who make such claims, and the media industry as a whole; which on the scum-sucking scale is only slightly above lawyers. Balance out the idiotic media views with more objective analysis from scholars. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- That should be debated at the article talk page. Any why, what's the difference between a disambig. page and redirect page? Biophys (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference is easy to grasp after reading WP:REDIRECT and comparing it with WP:DISAMBIG. You will find this particular clause especially useful in promoting the point of view you are trying to communicate in this AfD (it addresses Russavia's "baby killers" question, too).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:14, December 18, 2008 (UTC)
Keep, there are some notable scholarly papers and books on the topic in the German language, such as the paper by Ulrich Schmid titled "Naschi - Die Putin Jugend" published in the journal Osteuropa in 2005. Martintg (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although redirection might be tempting, it's not just Nashi and Iduscie Vmeste who go under this banner; another notable contender is Molodaya Kvardia. In summary, Putinjugend is a wider phenomenon than any specific organisation. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is only to be a disambig page, then it should be redirected as I spelled out above. If people are actually thinking of expanding it and turning it into an article, then I would be changing that to Delete as per User:DonaldDuck. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, and expand. Putinjugend is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place. Grey Fox (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changing my opinion to delete based on WP:ATP and WP:NEO, as it seems that editors seem to think this will become an article. Based on WP:ATP, An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject. Putinjugend is a pejorative, not to mention inflammatory, term which is used by a small minority to disparage the subject of the articles, and it is a WP:NEO. And we have editors actually calling for expansion of such a WP:NPOV term. Hell, why don't we create a disambig at Baby killer for Johnson and Nixon? Or Arse licker for John Howard (seeing as he was all but called as such)? Or on Lap dog, why don't we put at the top under "see other uses" Tony Blair? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything pejorative or disparaging in the term, it succinctly sums up the essence of these youth groups created by Putin. Martintg (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you put on your neutrality cap you would see that it is pejorative. Comparing something to Hitler or anything operated or associated to Hitler, is of course going to be pejorative. Would you agree with us adding to Inbred as a "see also" which states "This article is about the concept. For the people commonly known for inbreeding, please see Tasmanians." Would this be agreeable? As I can absolutely provide more sources making that connection, than one could for Putinjugend. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I generally dislike such titles, they may create confusion and inflame. There is no proof as of now, that the term is widely used or that some theories are created on such a topic etc. It should be expanded - based on reliable sources - or else deleted as a useless re-direct/disamb page. --Pan Miacek (t) 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is even attempted to be expanded, I will bring it straight back here as WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. In fact, the term itself should not even be a major part of the articles themselves, rather than the opinions behind why some believe it is similar. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof lies on those people, who want to keep the article. If they do not find anything, it should be deleted. If there exists a thesis about 'Hitlerjugend - Putin -Putinjugend' then it deserves an article. If there is no such theory, it merits no disamb. pages/ re-directs. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 20:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the term has been used by reliable sources to refer to more than one group, so disambiguation is needed. And by the way, nothing in WP:FN or WP:MOSDAB indicates footnotes are to be excluded from disambiguation pages. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Walking Together, I can find no emergence of reliable sources referring to that organisation as Putinjugend. Blogs and the like do not count for such purposes. I can find exactly 0 book and scholar sources which use the WP:NEO to describe Walking Together. And basically the same for the same terms, but in Russian. In fact, the entire Walking Together article doesn't use a single reference, and doesn't even mention the term. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I included the source.Biophys (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have included a single source, which by the way does not refer to Walking Together, but rather refers to Nashi as Putinjugend. Even if it were mentioned in the source, the use of the term by a single source is not enough to have the WP:NEO on WP. Read WP:NEO. If you think this is valid, I would ask you, and I am seriously asking you whether you are going to create a disambig page for Baby killer which leads to both Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon, as there are sources for it. Sources for Johnson -- Google news, Google books, and Google Scholar. In addition, you can create a redirect to Vietnam veterans for the term Baby killers. Sources for that, Google news, Google books and Google scholar. Are you going to be WP:BOLD and create these? And it is a serious question, as there are more sources which make that connection, than for Putinjugend. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV attribution used as a redirect or disambig, similar to Chimp user as a redirect to George Bush or Big Satan as a redirect to USA, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know any sources about "Chimp", but mentioning Big Satan as a pejorative expression for the US is perfectly fine, and I just included it. Same thing with Putinjugend.Biophys (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term is Great Satan, and I have reverted your addition. Any chance, you will create Baby killer and its plural any time soon? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby killer should redirect to Putin right? Grey Fox (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be? Google News returns a single result, in which the Chechen terrorists responsible for Beslan are called baby killers. Google Books returns a single result, that being a fiction book. Google scholar returns 144 results, of which not a single result related to Vladimir Putin, as it is picking up results for the terms "baby killer" and "put in". So based on these results, shouldn't baby killer be a redirect to Chechen Republic of Ichkeria? But of course, you wouldn't do that now would you? Stop being a WP:DICK, because whilst you may find the term funny, and laugh everytime, what this discussion has done has shown the hypocrisy of certain editors, yourself included, who are so willing to vote keep for a neologism which is used by a dozen or so sources only, and not only want to keep, but want to expand it. Yet, not a single one of you are willing to create a redirect for Baby killers to Vietnam veterans and Baby killer to Lyndon B. Johnson, even though this is well documented by thousands of sources (not a dozen!) as being used by the anti-Vietnam war movement to describe both parties. The POV-pushing ways of several editors have now shone thru. You guys are the ones who voted to keep and expand, and have proceeded to treat this as an article. However, in doing so, you have all forgotten to read WP:V, in that material added needs to be referenced, and it is the WP:BURDEN of people who wish to insert information to ensure it is referenced, because unreferenced materials can be removed. I remove Walking Together because reliable sources out there do not refer to it as that term, yet the unreferenced addition of that name is reverted by a POV-pusher. Not only do they re-insert that, but also include another term, unreferenced, based upon their own POV, hatred and biases. True Colors is a great song, don't you think? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian forces bombed a school full of children in a false attempt to liberate them, and Putin took responsibility for it, so it might as well apply to him? And then there's the thousands of other children that died in the Caucasus such as here[26]. You're the one who started accusing people to be known by opponents as "baby killers", so It's only fair for me to point out that, according to some opponents, that's the same for your favourite hero Vladimir Putin. The same goes for the terrorists in Beslan of course, but for some reason you think the terrorists represent the entire Chechen Republic. That makes no sense unless one would apply Racism. Grey Fox (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also chill out. Calling "us" hypocrites and pov pushers is completely against WP:AGF. And just to make it clear, "putinjugend" is a term that describes a certain movement. "baby killers" is something anti-war activists have used for pretty much every war ever. Grey Fox (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now we seem to be getting somewhere. I see a direct correlation between linking Putin as a baby killer, and Putinjugend being a common term, not only for Nashi, but for other groups also. There is not a single reliable source (in English mind you) which calls Putin a baby killer. Your claims above are your own POV and OR/SYN. There is not a single source which backs you up on that point. However, I do have a source which makes the connection; however, it is the opinion of an extremely small minority and needs to be discounted outright -- of course, I am making this statement by using a single search term. Although I did stuff up, I did actually mean to link to Basayev instead, as it was him who was being directly inferred about. Now if you transplant it to this neologism, look at the results -- Talk:Putinjugend. The book and scholar sources are what is particularly important (due to web searches being full of blogs links and such). All-in-all, what I am trying to do is to get you all to look at this with a critical mind. I would never start Baby killer, as it is clearly against policy, and its the policy which has to drive us, not our own POV and biases; my suggestion of creating a redirect for baby killer/s was done to show people are going to some extraordinary lengths to keep something using flimsy reasoning, and even flimsier sources, yet none is willing to create something for which there is great evidence of...and we are talking of neologisms here. All I have seen from some editors is their pushing of their own POV without adhering to policy; misrepresentation of sources, disregarding of WP:V, engaging in WP:OR and/or WP:SYN, etc, etc. I have seen two editors in recent times indef blocked and banned for a year for such things. I am not accusing you in particular Grey-Fox mind you, so don't see it as such. That's all I've got to say anyway, this can all rest on its merits now. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't agree with you (I'm glad you've corrected that link to Basayev though). Putinjugend is not a term you have to embrace. There's similar new terms that not everybody embraces, such as Islamophobia and/or Islamofascism. The comparison to "baby killers" is really primitive. This is not the place though, if you want to hear my arguments you may use my talk page. Grey Fox (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the nominator - unfortunately, it's too late for me to withdraw this (as other people have now argued for deletion). However, I've been convinced the word is notable, and think this content is worth keeping. But there seems to be some objection to having this as a separate page - so perhaps the best solution would be to merge it into a subsection of Hitlerjugend (into a 'modern comparisons' section, for instance)? That seems like it would solve all of the problems that have been raised with the article, without losing the content. Terraxos (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see also my comments to "Weak keep" below, as I seem to have the same concerns as you: notable info, but prefer to have it included in a larger article. But, although I think Hitlerjugend can mention Putinjugend, I believe the proper place of Putinjugend is Political neologisms. Dc76\^talk 15:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge useful information into suitable sections of articles on those movements (see Terraxos's suggestion above).--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is Walking Together being re-added to this so-called disambig page? If you guys want to treat it as a disambig page, then fine, let's treat it as a disambig page. I have already demonstrated out that pejorative term is not used to refer to any other group other than Nashi. To everyone who is saying keep, I expect them to come up with reliable sources which show that the use of this WP:NEO is widespread in describing these other groups. As User:Miacek so rightly points out, WP:BURDEN is on you guys (this means Martintg, Biophys, Digwuren, etc). Because in all of the sources which have been provided, only Nashi is referred to, pejoratively, as Putinjugend. It is your own hatred, biases and POV which is allowing you to add other groups, without supplying a single source; and it isn't a single source which is needed, but a multitude of sources which refer to these other groups in that way. And as I have mentioned, Walking Together doesn't even make mention of this pejorative neologism, and is in fact totally unreferenced anyway. You are being called out on this one guys. And by the way, if I should see in any article Putinjugend actually being linked to, it will be immediately removed by myself, as the name of the organisation should be linked to, not the uncommon pejorative neologism. And I don't suspect any of you guys will answer my absolute valid questions above either. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly paper by Ulrich Schmid goes into some detail about Walking Together, they being the pre-cursor to Nashi. It was Walking Together that originally got the name "Putinjugend" in the popular press back in the early 2000's because they use to wear t-shirts with Putin's portrait on it. Ofcourse the term isn't entirely pejorative, many German authors see the movement as a "faschistische Führerkult" and thus view the comparison to Hitlerjugend as a valid one. Martintg (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) A note on German usage: some google hits, esp. the version Putin-Jugend might perhaps be understood as just Putin Youth, i.e. reference to the youth with strong loyalty to Putin but not necessarily a parallel to Hitlerjugend (which, I believe, is generally spelled as one word).--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance Martin et al, of dealing with this. Because English usage of the term, especially for Walking Together is non-existent, and I would expect other languages to be exactly the same. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nashi, per those meager sources that have so far been provided. If and when any sources supporting that this term is used to refer to any other groups surface later, then the redirect can be overwritten with a disambig page (which will be subject to disambig page guidelines, mind you).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:14, December 18, 2008 (UTC)

This scholarly paper by Schmid discusses Walking Together as the original "Putinjugend". Martintg (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great source that could be of great use... in the German Wikipedia. This, however, is the English edition of Wikipedia, so a neologism like this one better be backed with sources in English. Calqueing a term directly from German into English is simply an illustration of original research. It's kind of like saying that we should create the putintsy and puting articles, just because both words are used in Russian.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:51, December 18, 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Evident neologism. Also per Jimbo, quoted at WP:UNDUE "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. ".Xasha (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the publications like The Times, The Boston Globe, The Weekly Standard, Der Spiegel and Newsweek International represented a "extremely small minority", I thought they were mainstream publications. Martintg (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the English language sources mention very clear that the term is used by controversial politician Valeria Novodvorskaya and "some Russian liberals" (which very probably refers to the same Opposition party leader). Those newspapers don't assume the term as their own, as shouldn't Wikipedia. The opinions should be attributed to their originators in the articles about Nashi and other organization criticized as such, and not imposed as an encyclopedic subject. As for the German sources (which anyway don't have any relevance for use in English), as someone mentioned above, in German that may mean simply "Putin's youths", without the clear Nazi connotation the term "Putinjugend" has in English. Also, the Times doesn't mention the term at all, (not Putinjugend, nor Putin's Youth), so that surce is clearly misused in the article and should be removed.Xasha (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Why am I not surprised that Valeria Novodvorskaya is behind the usage of the term. Does this now mean that at Democrat, we put a link to Shamil Basayev, after all, this is a term she used to describe him, and which caused her to be banned from Echo Moskvy (for one to get banned from EM, you would join a club which can be counted on one hand - they allow all views (sane and nutty). The use of the word democrat to describe Basayev was also carried by media. The fact that she has used the term, is evidence enough that it is a pejorative term. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In typical KGB/FSB fashion you're trying to discredit Novodvorskaya's career by finding an old quote of her and taking it out of context. Novodvorskaya actually said that Basayev was a terrorist, but that he used to be a democrat, which could technically be correct since he was a candidate in the 1997 post-war free and fair chechen democratic elections. Grey Fox (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note For those who don't really know what these youth movements are, here is a video report about them. Grey Fox (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Observation Youth in the US have a long history of not exercising their political rights and not being politically active, and this year in the US presidential election the youth came out in unprecedented numbers; this was described in the western media by words such as "refreshing". Youth in Russia also have a long history of not exercising those same rights, yet when they do so on a much more organised basis, this is described in the western media as "frightening". A video such as this would be described by the western media as "cute". Have the same kids singing a song in Russian about Putin, and it would be called "indoctrination". There is a point to this, put the word Putinjugend into Google and see how many results one gets. Then put the word Obamajugend into Google, and see if you too get a few hundred more results than its Putin counterpart, and he hasn't even been a day in office yet....perhaps once there has been time to write books and scholars to do their own analysis on the US elections, perhaps another group will be back here arguing about the type of topic. :) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison is a typical soviet style or modern-day russia style attempt to make something appear less than it really is, in my own language there's a word dedicated to this. The term putinjugend has an extra 7,480 hits in Russian[27]. "Obamajugend" isn't used seriously by respected scholars or journalists, but by kids on the internet mostly as a joke. There's also no organized "Obama Youth" of completely indoctrinated people getting payed by the government to worship the government. Grey Fox (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really relevant to anything? If you want to create an article called "Obamajugend" go right ahead. Martintg (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as regards the claim of neologism, "Nashi" is more of a neologism than "Putinjugend", since the term "Nashi" only came into English after 2005, while "Putinjugend" was initially used to refer to the Walking Together group that existed since 2000. Martintg (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stats on usage In reference to Martintg's post immediately above this (from the talk page)....

Regardless of whether a source can be found which would qualify Walking Together in being included in this list, it has to be dealt with as per WP:UNDUE.

A Google search of "Walking Together" Russia returns the following results....

Web search - 46,100
News search - 525
Books search - 631
Scholar search - 760

It needs to be noted with this particular search term may include such results as "Walking together down the street in Russia", although a check of the first 20 pages of results reveals that almost all refer to the subject in discussion here.

A Google search of "Walking Together" Russia Putinjugend returns the following results....

It needs to be noted with this particular search term, in many of the instances that I found, Walking Together was mentioned in the article, but so was Nashi, and it was Nashi which is referred to as Putinjugend, so these figures are going to be somewhat lower than shown above.

A Google search of "Walking Together" Russia "Putin Youth" returns the following results....

It needs to be noted with this particular search term, "Putin Youth" is mostly returning results for the term "Pro-Putin youth movement", so on the face of it, these results would likely be lower than with Putinjugend in its place.

Now, WP:UNDUE states:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Do I have to lay the math out to show that the linking of this term to Walking Together is done by an extremely small minority. Doing the math, using only Putinjugend results, and assuming all links are accurate for what we want, only 0.55% of web sources refer to Walking Together as Putinjugend; news results is 0.57%, and the Book and Scholar sources, well they speak for themselves.

If anyone can demonstrate that these terms are used by a majority, or even a significant minority (let's say 10% shall we?), there is no reason for it to stay. Otherwise, it has to be removed as per WP:UNDUE.

Now to Nashi and it being described as Putinjugend....

The results are clear, really aren't they? It's a non-notable WP:NEO and to have any page or even redirect devoted to it, given the extremely minute usage is to go against WP:UNDUE. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google search for "Putinjugend" gives 6.800 hits. Thus, it is justified as a disambig. page and perhaps even as a standalone article.Biophys (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do a search for "putinjugend -blog -wiki -wikipedia -livejournal -youtube" and that figure more than halves. Nashi youth returns 46,000 results. I've already demonstrated that the vast majority refer to Nashi, and assuming that all 3,000 Putinjugend and 46,000 Nashi Youth sources are WP:RS, would still only give you 6.5% of course which refer to Nashi as Putinjugend. That fits in with If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. - WP:UNDUE. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However the guideline also states: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;, I can easily name Valeria Novodvorskaya as a prominent adherent (being notable enough to warrant her own Wikipedia article means she can be considered prominent), you assertion that it is "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" is patently false. Martintg (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe the Plumber also has an Wikipedia article and is arguably more prominent, but we keep his personal opinions in his article, we don't create new articles about those views. Similarly "Putinjugend" may be mentioned when talking about criticism of Nashi or views of Novodvorskaya, but it isn't an encyclopedic topic per se, so it doesn't merit an article. Nor even a redirect or disambiguation, because this could open the door to tons of disambiguation for other epithets (every country leader and most important organizations have at least one that can be sourced to opinion pieces in reliable newspapers) Xasha (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Redirect#Alternative_names_and_languages, alternative names, general pseudonyms, nicknames, and synonyms are legitimate redirects, it even gives the example of Butcher of Kurdistan redirecting to Ali Hassan al-Majid. So Putinjugend is a legitimate redirect to both Walking Together and Nashi (Ours), hence the need for a disambiguation page. Martintg (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butcher of Beirut also redirects to Ariel Sharon. Grey Fox (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Note, that there is Category:Political neologisms. Normally, I would prefer this article to be merged into Neologism#politics, but that's only a list. So unless that list is transformed into text (one sentence per entry), the article is to stay. In medium or long term, I suggest to move "Politics" section of Neologism into a separate article, and consider if it is worth merging all those articles (from the list) into one. So, my oppinion (unless somebody persuades me that something else is better) is keep for short term, and merge for long term, which I render as weak keep. Dc76\^talk 15:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. It's a wellknown term and it's not up to Wikipedia to decide if it's a correct naming of some Russian youth movements or not. Närking (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plain neologism like demshizoid and eSStonia. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eSStonia refers to a whole country, putinjugend only to the mass youth groups funded by a political party. Grey Fox (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly the same thing. It seems this AfD will be decided more by position towards Russian actions in Georgia and personal feelings towards Putin than by WP policies.Xasha (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely different. Also there's people who used to follow Russian politics before the conflict in Georgia you know. Grey Fox (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform Xasha: I have followed Soviet/Russian politics since the 1980s so don't try to involve the war in Georgia into this. Närking (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasures. Elysander (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This term is used in mass media. Besides, the article seems to be well sourced. --Hillock65 (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Davies (musician)

Apparently entirely non-notable beyond playing with a few notable artists; primary website is MySpace page. MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Lots of articles with brief discussion of her work (e.g. [28] ("A-list bassist Bryn Davies (best known for her work with Peter Rowan, Tony Rice and Patty Griffin)"), [29] ("Special kudos to standup bass player Bryn Davies, whose contributions gave the numbers a lovely depth and resonance.", [30] ("Bryn Davies, in addition to sweet harmony vocals, has blossomed into a predominant upright bassist. ")) More in-depth, but possibly still not "non-trivial" is [31]. However, I think the net effect of all these articles (there are plenty more out there) add up to enough to keep this. JulesH (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - If your primary website is your MySpace, you're not 'notable'. Lots of musicians out there, but that does not translate to them all deserving Wikipedia entries. MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability has not been established. If above references are incorporated into the article I will consider their merit and might opine differently. Boston (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete JulesH's sources are only trivial mentions, and no other sources found. Note, however, that some artists can be notable without having websites. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Hang on; I'm finding some sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – She has received press as part of several bands: Billy & Bryn Bright, the Two High String Band, Peter Rowan as the Texas Trio. I've added now a bunch of references, articles from newspapers from the US and Canada. There's enough for WP:N notability, I believe, since these are not trivial mentions of her. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: A large number of sources have been added since the last delete !vote. Relisting so the discussion can focus on the article as it currently stands.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Most of the sources are about the band, not the musician. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "the band"—there are three different bands. And, according to WP:N there is not a requirement that coverage be exclusive, just that it is not trivial. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I meant "bands", plural. In that case, weak keep per sources, seems to be borderline. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep now that proper efforts have been applied. Boston (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taina Mirabal

As per suggestion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Father of Racism. No notability is asserted, nor do references appear to directly comment on Mirabal's work or notability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The film doesn't even exist. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability through reliable sources that would pass WP:BIO or more specifically WP:CREATIVE. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three Continents Festival

very limited third party coverage Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme KEEP. WIth respects to the nom, a film festival that has been around for nearly 30 years has got a little bit going for it. So I spent a few minutes cleaning up and sourcing the article. Its definitely notable. And though the nom found this with one spelling, I found this with another and this with a thrird... and let us not forget the more general web searches which found [32], [33], and [34]. Most definitely notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme keep? I've never seen that in an AfD! Anyway, existing for 30 years doesn't in itself make it notable, it still needs to past the significant coverage test. This reference isn't exactly a totally reliable source, newspapers and independent media is more reliable. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, newspapers. I found those sources as well.. as did you. Like I wrote, I took 2 minutes to cleanup and source. More can certianly be added. Would you care to do so per WP:ATD, rather than nom for delete? It has notability. Its not Cann, but it has international coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article looks extreme to me, extremely referenced etc. In fairness to the nominator it probably didn't look like this extreme when he first saw it, extreme work Schmidt. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks. I took only a quick look for sourcing. There's lots more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the current references, the required coverage is there. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super cool-ass keep - Supplied references satisfy the EXTREME-o-meter, and WP:V. — neuro^(talk) 17:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maverican

This is a non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is also not a dictionary, but mainly this thing is non-notable, not even the two "references" mention it Scapler (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blogger coinage that hasn't gone mainstream yet, and probably won't. 24 Google hits, most of which are non-US sites that use it as an apparently insulting mispronunciation of "American". Rklear (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I declined the speedy but was going to nominate it myself with the exact same rationale given by Scapler. A neologism with no references (the refs given make no mention of it). faithless (^speak) 02:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Protologism, fails WP:NEO and WP:V. — neuro^(talk) 03:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this term has not achieved notability. Also, the article reads too much like a dictionary definition. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zabat

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reject for wrong venue or, if it is insited that this is a suitable place, Keep and then discuss a merge, in that order. There is no reason why we should not have a summary of this content; I dont think anyone would defend a full article,and the merge discussion should be straightforward enough. Please take this as applying to the entire group of nominations.DGG (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge if appropriate. Per DGG but also, this (and others) was a real product that one could go to a shop and buy; I can see no reason why we should not cover it; the only question is whether it should be covered in a separate article or an article about the range of products. CIreland (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and reject merge for the following reasons:
- Merge discussions never ever seem to go anywhere. A vote to merge is a vote to keep it unchanged indefinitely, and that is not acceptable.
- Unsourced material should be removed unless and until it can be sourced, not stashed away within other articles.
- I don't see that any article would be improved by including this- most Zoids articles are bloated and overflowing with exactly this kind of cruft already.
- Wikipedia is a lot of things but it is most certainly not a product catalogue for toy companies. Reyk _YO! 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Based on reasonable outcome for informative article with insufficient notability to stand apart from broader topic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly non-notable. Eusebeus (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klopman diamond

Largely unsourced in joke, used only in Garfield & Friends. Only source is Mark Evanier. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Just a joke. Malinaccier (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed. Not a bad joke, but not an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garfield and Friends#Humor and merge a few of the details of the gag within that section. Nate • (chatter) 05:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is just a joke, and is non notable. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 23:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Not particularly funny, either. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge It's much older than Garfield. I've got a Myron Cohen record from the 1960s in which he invokes that joke, complete with standard ethnic Jewish accents. It's probably much older than that. Hard to imagine it needs an entire article, though. If anything, it belongs with Hope Diamond, as the Hope Diamond is the comparison being made: "It's like the Hope Diamond. It comes with a curse." What's the curse? "Mr. Klopman!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it's funny or not is OR. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the Cohen reference really, a running gag that transcends genres and decades. At a pinch I suppose it could be merged as a subsection into Hope Diamond as it is a gag directly derived from that entity. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Myron Cohen, but not Garfield and Friends. Google Books shows some sources. I've got "The Haunted Smile: The Story of Jewish Comedians in America‎" which explains the joke, as well as "1002 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking". I've found other books and news articles written that assume the reader is familiar with this joke, so it must be a famous joke, i.e. there's a book about wine called the "Wine Avenger" which in a section on etiquette starts with If some waitron in an apron presents you with a wine cork as if it were the Klopman Diamond, just say ... Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per the references mentioned above. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Appears to be a well established joke that predates Garfield and Friends. ThePointblank (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this joke has been a long-running feature of at least one standup comedian's act, and was then adopted as a long-running feature of a cartoon. It has to be notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus that this article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends)

Contested prod. This fictional character is notable within his universe, problem is, the universe in question is not. Judging by comments on my talk page, the author seems to think that Wikipedia's policy of allowing anyone to edit is a free pass for adding any information about anything, no matter how non-notable. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN character, no g-hits on "Tony Cunningham" "Tony & Friends"[35], nothing to show why this character is notable. --Terrillja _talk 01:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's not even an article on the series this character appears in. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence whatsoever for the notability of the book. The first step would be to try to write an article on the book or the series--or even the author. then would be the time to consider whether it's important enough for detailed articles like this. DGG (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find a single piece of evidence the user had even one of those books actually published. Looks like they're using the wiki to keep a story bible for the writing process. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as even I am unable to reference and therefore rescue this article. I could not find anything in multiple searches on the work of fiction itself or even really the author, let alone this character. Obviously no prejudice against recreation down the road if new sources turn up, but at this time we cannot verify this article's contents through reliable sources and usually DGG and MaGyverMagic are persuasive as to which fictional character articles should be kept or deleted. That they both believe that this article is unsalvageable at this time is telling. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have loved to prove the illustrious group above wrong, but I can't. Neither series nor author nor protagonist (per information on Tony201213's talk page) pass our inclusion guidelines at this point, and the information in the article is not verifiable. --Amalthea 19:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12, copyright violation. Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Gurvitz

not notable. Goggle search finds far more hits for a diiferent Ian Gurvitz. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article text is basically a copy of the text contained in reference 1 (a Huffington Post biographical paragraph). Nothing inherently notable about this individual, based on content of article or link. TheFeds 08:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wasn't sure if the article met CSD G12 or not. If it does, consider this a request for speedy delete. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or speedy delete under CSD G12. - 149.142.220.74 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd also support speedy (CSD G12) if it's appropriate. - 71.138.125.138 (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 00:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- why was this relisted? Consensus is clear. Reyk _YO! 01:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Consensus was all set for deletion and then this had to get relisted. I don't understand this... Tavix (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Maybe relisted because of the IP !votes? Anyway, the article should be deleted; the subject does seem to be not notable enough and it is mostly a copyright violation. Chamal ^talk 02:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I doubt that. Anon votes count if they are based on policy, from what I've seen. The anon votes here look like they're based on policy. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Defense of Animals

Refer to article's talk page. This article has not had sources cited for a long time. The article is not encyclopedic, and may contain significant bias. Jpj681 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep whilst it lacks citations in current form, it meets WP:ORG. significant third party coverage as revealed in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does have third-party coverage, but it's been an unreferenced, unsubstantiated article for over a year. If kept, it should be dramatically edited. It is barely a stub.Jpj681 (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

going to make the article into a stub. Jpj681 (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article is being fleshed out during AfD. some conflicts may exist with citations that are directly replicated from the IDA website, but i dont think the article needs deleted at this point.Jpj681 (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added 11 citations and tidied up a fair bit. If you wish you can withdraw your nomination but that's your call. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known animal advocacy group. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very well done, too. :P wont withdrawal; I'll let it go through the process. there are some reference issues,i think. but definitely glad for your efforts. peaceJpj681 (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now added a number of reliable references which seems to prove this group's activism is well documented. I think it now passes WP:ORG. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wonderful. this article languished for quite a while. great job. 'nother win for WP Jpj681 (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD isn't the way to achieve it though, Jpj. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, slim, that's what I thought as well...check out the article's talk page. i bent under peer pressure. :P (and i think that even a noble institution's entries should meet the Standard. that article's statements went completely unchallenged for over a year. and now they won't:P)Jpj681 (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, and I do see your point, but you could have added some references yourself. It's a well-known group and sources are easy to find, after all. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well-known to whom? i'd never heard of it until I Random Articled it. and I'm not even directly interested in the topic. but people that have heard of the org, have probably come to its WP article, have possibly cited it elsewhere on the web, didn't do anything to improve its credibility? way worse than the dramatic step of AfD, imo. ask Rockpocket :O I'm not interested in the subject. just the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpj681 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article looks fine to me.  Plenty of sources now. JulesH (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah it's fine now. Jpj681 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-referenced article on notable topic. Everyking (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- glad it's been improved but I would've favored keeping even the version that was nominated. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wycombe house cricket club

Non-notable cricket club; non-encyclopedic Johnlp (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is advertising with at least 3 paragraphs of provable copyvio.[36] However the club gets WP:RS coverage and has apparently produced multiple WP:ATHLETE players now in Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a poorly written article about a minor league cricket club, and needs wikifying. Until it is (and links are made), it is difficult to judge its quality. I am not even clear from it where its ground is located. This is important, as it is often the best solution for clubs of mere local importance to be merged into the place where they are located. In this case the articel would need to be pruned to make that feasible. It also needs to have the "we" and "our" removed. The copy-vio issue may be resolvable, if the author is in fact connected with the club: the club would need to release the text from its copyright. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 00:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little third party coverage. [37]
Delete per WP:ORG. Purely local interest, nothing notable (some kids who went on to become professionals isn't enough, in my opinion). Stephen Turner (Talk) 23:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Peace Project

The organization appears to be a well-marketed climbing club with very little notability. It has been heavily edited by Lancetrumbull (talk · contribs) the founder and executive director of The Everest Peace Project. Despite what the article says, the organization seems to be dedicated to selling DVDs. Toddst1 (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1, you're alway submit this article for deletetion, again and again. I don't understand why you keep doing this... do you have anythig agains't this movie? From my point of view, it's out of criterias. A small clean up in the article, it makes sense ... but to fight for several months, it becomes an obsession! Thak you. Antaya (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to the edit history, there was a merge proposal but this is the first proposal or nomination to delete. This article has issues and ad hominems are not helpful here. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you think the article is notable, I suggest fixing up the references so we can see what the sources of the article are. Where are these links from? It looks like a couple might be legitimate, but it would be nice to give dates and to identify the sources.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--since a good look at these references (and some of them were bogus--one was mentioned twice, another was hardly independent) proves there's little here. Really, you got two articles from entirely local papers/websites (coverage probably only because some of the group members got the interview from their local reporter), there's one from a sort of bloggiething, and the most notable thing was the Dalai Lama's endorsement (which can be found in somewhat dependable-looking publications). So I'm really not convinced of notability here--this one thing, then, this endorsement, strikes me as a single news event. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 00:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The external link to the "official website" is about a movie. The article is about an organization. What is the relation? What is the story? I'm confused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. News search shows significant mention of the project that is covered by myriad of sites in various countries. Albeit some of these news items detail a person who joined the group in the expedition (e.g. 1, 2, 3) there are others who specifically describe the group (4, 5). I feel this amount of coverage is significant to cover WP:GNG. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Teft Auto IV Weapons

Poorly formatted, article name is spelled wrong, content is not encyclopedic. Mblumber (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. Listcruft. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as A3. No meaningful, substantive content. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete misnamed, questionable need for split; nothing worth merging. JJL (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruft, possible A3. Tavix (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More like a walkthrough than an encyclopedic article. Anyway, information about the weapons can be included in the article Grand Theft Auto IV itself. Nothing big enough to have an article of its own. Chamal ^talk 01:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cruft, don't think it's A3 mind. — neuro^(talk) 03:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally useless to wikipedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing substantial to merge with the main GTA article Matt (Talk) 08:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedically covered. Note that prior to my vote, someone removed the actual content from the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it with a rocket launcher. Marasmusine (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conceivably fixable, but not worth the trouble. DGG (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is an explanation even really required for this one? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malinaccier (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M1dy

Video game music remixer that doesn't seem to have any verifiable information out there on them (fails WP:V). There aren't any reliable sources listed in the article and Googling only seems to bring up "FREE MP3 DOWNLOADZ!!!11" type links - nothing that would qualify as a reliable source. This artist's work seems to be mostly self-released and much of the article looks to be original research. Wickethewok (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC still applies, delete. --fvw * 22:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing the precedents set in WP:MUSICBIO Tavix (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. I'll have a go at finding some sources, but I can't imagine there are many to be found. — neuro^(talk) 03:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrine of Exchange

This article doesn't have any references to reliable, third-party sources, and therefore it fails our requirements on verifiability. Almost all the sources in the article are either primary sources (Scientology itself, or administrative/court decisions involving Scientology) or unreliable, self-published Web pages. I did a Google Books search and found only 1 relevant hit, which was a primary source (from a compilation of U.S. tax cases). Most hits for "doctrine of exchange" relate to economic theory and not Scientology. There are a handful of relevant hits on Google Scholar from law reviews, but these revolve around the legal questions, not the doctrine itself. We might be able to justify an article on Hernandez v. Commissioner, but not about this obscure belief, since the belief (as opposed to the legal questions surrounding it) doesn't seem to have been the subject of any substantive third-party analysis. *** Crotalus *** 18:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a court ruling that acknowledges the doctrine is not a third-party source then what is it? WillOakland (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, with that as the only independent source, it's going to be a short article. WillOakland (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per verifiability requirements. Topic covered by international reliable, third-party sources Los Angeles Times and Times Online (England) --Jmundo (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has to be notable enough for inclusion, given the court case and newspaper references. My only concern is that the economic doctrine(s) is/are given their place as well. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids: Fuzors. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Dragon

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids: Fuzors as a plausible search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rdirect. Nothing is alleged here that would justify complete deletion, so it was wrong to bring it to afd. I doubt anyone would seriously defend this as an individual article, so it should have been possible to find a compromise merge solution for this whole group of articles instead of fighting them individually. I do not consider than the method the nominator has chosen for this is a good way of handling the situation, but nobody has been able to dissuade him. Myself, I consider proceeding in this way is becoming disrruptive. DGG (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zoids: Fuzors as a plausible search term. Otherwise, nothing but unreferenced original research. MuZemike (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Ptera

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect The toy itself might warrant a redirect, but "Unlike the other three Gravity Zoids, the Gravity Ptera has never appeared in any Zoids anime or video games." suggests it's not notable enough for that to make sense. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rdirect. Nothing is alleged here that would justify complete deletion, so it was wrong to bring it to afd. I doubt anyone would seriously defend this as an individual article, so it should have been possible to find a compromise merge solution for this whole group of articlsee previous afd for more detailed comments. DGG (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No soures, no article. Stifle (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raynos

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rdirect. Nothing is alleged here that would justify complete deletion, so it was wrong to bring it to afd. I doubt anyone would seriously defend this as an individual article, so it should have been possible to find a compromise merge solution for this whole group of articlsee previous afd for more detailed comments. DGG (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No soures, no article. Stifle (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Eagle

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rdirect. Nothing is alleged here that would justify complete deletion, so it was wrong to bring it to afd. I doubt anyone would seriously defend this as an individual article, so it should have been possible to find a compromise merge solution for this whole group of articlsee previous afd for more detailed comments. DGG (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No soures, no article. Stifle (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Stinger

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - No independent sources, mostly original research. Redirect to either the main article or to a listing page if there are sources for that. Wickethewok (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rdirect. Nothing is allefged here that would justify complete deletion, so it was wrong to bring it to afd. I doubt anyone would seriously defend this as an individual article, so it should have been possible to find a compromise merge solution for this whole group of articles instead of fighting them individually. I do not consider than the method the nominator has chosen for this is a good way of handling the situation, but nobody has been able to dissuade him. My own view, is that its abusive. I scan only suppose he wants these out so much he doesn't care about trying for cooperative process.. DGG (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No soures, no article. Stifle (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Spiner

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term. _ Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rdirect. Nothing is alleged here that would justify complete deletion, so it was wrong to bring it to afd. I doubt anyone would seriously defend this as an individual article, so it should have been possible to find a compromise merge solution for this whole group of articlsee previous afd for more detailed comments. DGG (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the bolding in DGG's comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No soures, no article. Stifle (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Still needs sources, but the sources are out there. Malinaccier (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rayse Tiger

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of real life info. There is no WP:DEADLINE on improvement. _ Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rdirect. Nothing is alleged here that would justify complete deletion, so it was wrong to bring it to afd. I doubt anyone would seriously defend this as an individual article, so it should have been possible to find a compromise merge solution for this whole group of articlsee previous afd for more detailed comments. DGG (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. like Mgm. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Needs better sourcing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benedykta Mackieło

Nominating for deletion -- might be notable, in Polish press, but the Polish article also lacks sourcing. rootology (C)(T) 23:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about this link then? I took it straight from the Polish article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The link provided by Mgm and quoted in the pl.wiki article is basically a newspaper article from a large Polish newspaper, and can be considered a fairly notable mention and reliable source as far as newspapers can be reliable. Never heard of this person though. Article needs expansion, but one'd have to dig quite a lot to get to them if her notability is nil bar the fact that she had lived that long. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. like Ouro --Tamás Kádár (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have endeavoured to search the web in order to expand the article, and have found some information, which is now included in the article. I have also found a photograph, and sent an e-mail to the holders asking them about the copyright and whether they would have a version in higher resolution for use in the article. Before voting, thus, please take a look at the article. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Ouro (blah blah worked on this article. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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