Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 11

< July 10	July 12 >

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 Deleted per WP:SNOW and WP:NOT. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost pets

Contested prod. Sourceless original research essay. —Latischolar^talk_{contributions} 00:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A good faith effort, but this is infinitely closer to a how-to guide than an encyclopedia article. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, nor is it soapbox of information. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis article is not encyclopedic in any way, shape or form. Marcia Wright (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How-to guide.--Boffob (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Woodstock, Cape Town. An editor has already transferred the only relevant material, so I'll change the article title to a redirect. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boston House School of Design

This college is real but I can find no other sources through google that show any form of notability. I would like to encourage others to dig up some sources in case i missed something but i think that this article is pretty non notable. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 23:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per here, here and here. Request speedy closing.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. can't see anything notabl about it. Links posted by thomas are but directory listings, which do not qualify as independent and reliable sources as required by WP:N Ohconfucius (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are correct on the first and third links, but the second link shows BHC School of Design has had important designers (one of their students has a short profile on the page and they are listed). Also, we shouldn't forget about the internet's systematic bias.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Woodstock, Cape Town. Insufficient notability for a standalone page and not a degree-awarding institution. The target location badly needs some content and this would fit nicely there. TerriersFan (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no reliable sources writing about the school. The references provided by User:Thomas.macmillan consist of two directory listings, and a note about two of the students being finalists (there are 18) in a youth design awards contest. These aren't important designers. -- Whpq (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI never like deleting articles from non-western countries for lack of sources because I know that this simply perpetuates wikipedia's systematic bias against them. The School is affiliated with Edexcel, a British accrediting board and I've added it to the article. We should keep and try to find non-google sources rather than delete without first looking for print and other realiable sources which may not be online outside of a few privileged countries.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionI am unable to tell if this is a vocational-level program, or a degree program. By our usual standards, any institution of higher education giving the equivalent of college degrees is notable, but not necessarily otherwise. DGG (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to their website, they grant a diploma in interior design for their 3-year full time course, and the part time course are non-credit. No statement on accreditation. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible answer - reading around the various sources this is a vocational qualification and there is no indication that it is degree level. Having said that, it does look to be important within its field hence my suggestion to retain a mention via a merge. TerriersFan (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now merged the essential content at Woodstock, Cape Town#Boston House School of Design since the locality page badly needs some content. TerriersFan (talk) (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nominator withdrawal. The subject passes WP:ATHLETE since this person used to play in a fully professional league. Reliable sources have been found to verify that. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Sheringham

Seems to fail WP:ATHLETE, unless CP Baltimore are in a fully pro league. That would leave the articles with the task of giving him notability, and any interest in him and his career in those is purely in the light of reflected fame from his father. Famous relatives do not confer notability. Kevin McE (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (Strikeout my own nomination in light of evidence of status of USL 2nd division Kevin McE (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Crystal Palace Baltimore are fully professional - the USL Second Division is roughly the heirarchical equivalent of England's League 1. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the league (rather than the club) fully professional? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. [1] - it says "One level below the USL First Division lives in the USL Second Division, the foundation of professional soccer in the United States. The 2008 campaign features a 10-team format playing a regional schedule consisting of 20 regular season matches, 10 home and 10 away. The USL Second Division schedule is augmented by participation in the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, and various exhibitions. The league is the birthplace of professional players that aspire to reach the highest-levels of the game, while providing affordable family entertainment within their city." --JonBroxton (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no argument if his US sojourn was sufficient to meet the criteria, and no offence intended to fans of US soccer at that level. BUT I still don't think that his career thus far, such as it has been, merits the high profile mention it has in his father's article. Kevin McE (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does meet it. I said that below. matt91486 (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I am aware it is a fully professional league. Also, he has played for fully professional clubs in other fully professional leagues. Vincent Valentine 00:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to his article. Kevin McE (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - from what I'm aware, USL D2 does confer notability. matt91486 (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no league games, but he has played multiple games for Championship level teams.Londo 06 11:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article makes no mention of this: if there is verification of cup appearances, it should go into the article, otherwise notability hangs entirely on CP Baltimore's league's status. Kevin McE (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the content of the article is irrelevant in an AfD (or so it was the last time I read the AfD rules, which was admittedly like 2 years ago) - the fact that the article doesn't assert notability is only relevant in WP:CSD. If someone finds evidence to indicate the article is notable, but doesn't add it to the article, it still counts in the AfD... ugen64 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JonBroxton. Giant Snowman 16:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, it has been demonstrated that this qualifies under WP:ATHLETE as participation is fully pro. RFerreira (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted _GB^T/C 07:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HitPlay

ad, coi, ad, ad, did I mention ad? OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's already marked for speedy deletion, which is more appropriate than afd. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G11. —Latischolar^talk_{contributions} 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per my already tagging it for G11 before the AfD was added... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also tagged Sean Petersen as G11... an article just as spammy, and created by the same user... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just now looked at the MySpace page listed as the 'official website', and the entire article is a copy/paste job... not sure if this is a copyvio since it's obviously the same person creating the article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Not anymore since I just did a semi-major copyedit, in the slim case it survives... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment trying to learn how to wikify -HitPlay (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Happyme22 (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audience Figure

Speculative article, close to fake. The museum's web page gives a completly different explanation of this object. The German article, which was used as source for the translation, is also up for deletion (see de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3. Juli 2008#Audienzfigur). The discussion with the main author of the German article points to an misinterpreted and imprecise source (see de:Benutzer Diskussion:Thyra/Archiv#Quellen für Audienzfigur ?). jergen (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Was deleted on de:. Reason: implausible sources. --jergen (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not seem to pass WP:RS and appears to be original research.--Pmedema (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that the original article was found to be based on implausible sources confirms that this article also relies on non-reliable sources. Risker (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. — Satori Son 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Soxred 93 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedigree (album)

Barely announced, no sources claiming any of the songs. WP:CRYSTAL Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 22:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic look into my crystal ball article. Totally won't know how this album will do to pass WP:MUSIC... obliterate... POOF! --Pmedema (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:CBALL. --Kanonkas : Talk 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Crystalline.Kww (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - default to keep. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InGen

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot sections of the Jurassic Park movie and book articles. It has also not improved in the slightest, or shown any notability since its last AFD in April. As such, it is pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think there was good cause for renominating this article given how it turned out last time, not long ago. Шизомби (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to recent clear consensus and per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Major element of one of the most successful novel and movie franchises of all time. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot move to keep an article based on being a verifiable topic with real world importance when it has established no notability, no real world importance, and thus no notability. It, in fact, the reason I am nominating it for deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances in the Jurassic Park movies, books, comics, and video games is notable to many people for many reasons in the real world. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well that that has nothing to do with this discussion and is entirely off-topic. Notability is separate from popularity.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity is an important aspect of notability and few fictional organizations can say they have appeared in notable movies, video games, comic books, and novels. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands upon thousands can claim that, and it does not make them notable, reliable sources do. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through Google books and so on you will indeed find out of universe commentary on this notable fictional company. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. If it's there, provide a link to something specific instead of the whole internet. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some information can be sourced from such pages as [2]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was in doubt that the subject of the article was in the original novel, Jurrasic Park. Protonk (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a rather interesting one: [3]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

INCREDIBLE!!!! You actually posted your very first potentially reliable source establishing real world notability!!! I should give you a barnstar for that. It's like that moment in "The Miracle Worker". Unfortunately, that reference is very limited in scope, and would constitute about one sentence of notable content, which should go in the Jurassic Park book, film, or franchise article. Now if you can find a bunch more of these, we will enough material for a short article, but otherwise, it doesn't have enough notability for its own article.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you would like to give me a barnstar, it would renew my opinion of you as a nice and open-minded Wikipedia. :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)r[reply]

Keep notable plot element across a series of notable books and films. It is unfortunate no-one has improved the referencing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Flunks WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT in pretty basic ways; it's just snippets of setting and plot from various JP works. Nothing here worth saving, and no real-world context to make it useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fairly obvious fail of WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, see Middle-earth and the offshoot links to regions (Eriador, Gondor, Misty Mountains, Anduin etc etc). If Middle-earth can get away with it, why not others? Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's a huge body of scholarship on Tolkien's works. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
then Keep, Article (given the Middle-earth example) passes WP:NOT#PLOT. This article simply lacks references, but Google shows references to exist on this, as well as Isla Sorna, and Isla Nublar. Articles appear to be notable, they need references, not deletion. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We base these discussions off of the potential best version that the articles could possibly achieve. The best possible version of Middle-earth would contain a large amount of real world information along with a good chunk of plot. As long as they balance out decently, they're fine. This, on the other hand, has no chance for real world information, so it would still just be a single plot summary in its best version. You cannot logically compare two separate articles like that. TTN (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comment and question were in relation to WP:NOT#PLOT. The answer I received made me realize the ~~the~~ true criteria for keeping the article in notability not WP:NOT#PLOT. Given that the article has plenty of references that turn up on a google search, the question, in my mind, of notability is clear, The article can have plenty of references, but these are not yet added. I do not think that the articles about Eriador, Gondor, Misty Mountains, Anduin, Ered Luin, Mithlond, Lindon, Isengard, Saruman, Moria, Arnor, The Shire, Hobbit's, Rivendell, Elrond, Rhovanion, Lothlórien etc etc etc or Greyhawk and its links (Bigby, Eclavdra, Edralve, Gord, Iuz, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl, Boccob, Corellon Larethian etc etc etc) contain a large amount of real world information, Nor do I think they ever will. Note that some of these articles have been about since 2003, so I think it is accepted that they have a valid notability, even though some of the references are somewhat lacking. As to the best version, User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles turned up these references so I think this article, and its siblings have a fine future ahead of them. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can actually show some notable information, you and he have found nothing, and cannot claim to have found anything with any honesty. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; major element of major film/book series. Repeated AfDs are disruptive; if they were made by different editors instead of one editor trying to repeatedly delete the article, that would show some community concern.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced in-universe plot summary/trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not asserted in any way. There are a number of articles that can easily cover anything important related to the in-universe details. TTN (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources cover the subject in significant detail to establish notability. It doesn't concern me that the article plainly violates WP:WAF, that can be edited down. Protonk (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure there may not be outright sources, but the stories, movies etc do exist... you can't say it is not passing WP:V... just WP:RS.I think this is a classic case to ignore the rules.

How does ignoring the rule that wikipedia ought not be a publisher of first instance help us improve the encyclopedia? Protonk (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh...because I feel it's the Acme Corporation to Loonie Toons or the Cyberdyne Systems of Terminator or the Omni Consumer Products of Robocop.... I know I know...stop with the WP:OSE but I'm answering the question that was possed by Protonk.--Pmedema (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it isn't really an OSE argument. I think it is perfectly valid to claim that X company is emblematic for a series. LeGrand has one source that looks kind of interesting above (a chapter from a law textbook using fictional situations as models for court cases). If more pop up I'm sure we won't need to ignore notability rules in order to keep the article. Thanks for replying. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's enough commentary on Jurassic Park to make the major fictional organisations etc there notable also. DGG (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of this writing, the article has no sources (not even primary sources). When this AfD is closed as keep/no consensus it will be the second time we will have avoided deletion on the basis that the article "can be improved". That is a perfectly viable approach and one that helps save plenty of articles. It does, in my opinion, have limits. Hopefully this article will be improved with some marginal sourcing and this will become moot. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Sourcing has begun. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article and its subject have not gotten any less notable than the last stab at deletion, less than three months ago. Given that this AfD violates WP:CONSENSUS ("It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works.") in that there is no evidence of any change in notability or editor opinion, there is no valid justification to take a second attempt at deletion, which it appears will be followed by a third, forth, fifth effort, ad infinitum, when this one fails. Alansohn (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - this has minimal (if any) real-world context, and there's no reason why this needs or even merits an indepedent article. While the information may be encyclopedic and notable within the context of a proper article, encyclopedic information does not automatically "deserve" independent articles prima facie. The encyclopedia is better served by keeping the information in one place, presumably the article on the Jurassic Park series. A split should only be warranted where the information has metastasized sufficiently to allow for a large enough and coherent article which otherwise meets our basic requirements (namely real-world context). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:N and WP:NOT, more exposition of this argument in my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isla Sorna (2nd nomination) Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable plot aspect of a very notable movie franchise. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as in-universe, unencyclopedic, per WP:N and WP:NOT. Eusebeus (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability guidelines are totally disputed, out of universe sources have been provided, and see also WP:UNENCYC. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The notability guidelines are totally disputed by Le Roi. He's yet to form any sort of consensus that WP:N is not a useful guideline. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking at the talk page, I see no actual community support for the details of the notability guideline as is, which is why there are numerous proposals for revisions. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You don't see much community support because the status quo doesn't need constant vocal support unless it is called for. When it is called for, the support for the status quo has overwhelmed the opposition. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, the handful following that discussion did not want to go quite that far, but they did disagree wildly about what the actual notability standards are and should be as seen in all of those other proposals. As far as I am concerned, due to the changing nature and seemingly never ending discussions about notability guidelines, I just go by common sense and as such something that appears in one of the most significant fictional franchises, i.e. in multiple movies, multiple games, multiple novels, multiple comics, and as indicated above is in fact referenced in secondary sources as well is notable by any reasonable definition of that word and especially for the purposes of a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So where's your RFC showing a consensus to mark WP:N historical? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Others are already working on RfC on notability (see User:Masem/NoteRFC, for example) and it would probably be best to have one going at a time, no? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Huh. How did we go from an incomplete draft RFC in someone's userspace to "WP:N is totally disputed"? Describing WP:N as disputed is mistaken at best and deceptive at worst. Do not muddy up AFDs with this nonsense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The combination of the diverse proposals, the drafts for RfCs, the category of editors against notability, the previous attempt at a non-notability guideline, etc. all combined suggest that many, many editors dispute what is and is not notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Do not disrupt AFDs with this. WT:N is the place to propose not using WP:N at all any more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The main thing is that InGen is notable as that term is defined in that it appears in multiple works of fiction, is familiar to millions of people, and can be covered in reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:ITSA, WP:IKNOWIT, what reliable sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        See above; i.e. what resulted in this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I hate to pop Judge's bubble, but that seems to be a self-published book from lulu.com, an on-demand publisher. I can't find anything on that book outside of the Google excerpt, and the ISBN turns up absolutely nothing. WP:SOURCES demands a bit more than that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        References in published encyclopedias are good enough for me to believe that we can cover it in some manner other than outright deleting it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Mmkay. How is that reference useful for anything but briefly summarizing the plot of Jurassic Park, exactly as we do in the actual article on Jurassic Park? I'm not interested in counting the number of times "InGen" appears in print; I'm interested in references we can use to write this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We can use it to write a sentence at least on how the author's describe InGen, i.e. it seems that they indicate it is comparable to another "sleezy organization", which makes for an out of universe interpretation by someone other than Michael Crichton or Steve Spielberg. We can use sources like this to show that references to the company as receiving the baby T-Rex alludes to other exploitative entrepeneurs displaying King Kong. We can use such references as this to say that Ken Gelder describes InGen as "resolutely secretive, just like the firm in Grisham's novel." All it is is a matter of just going through these various sources and milking them for what we can, but what I am seeing is that it's possible to in fact accomplish such a thing and that outright deletion would only stave off realizing such a possibility. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then why haven't you done that? I'd like to see how you draw these trivial, in-passing mentions in the context of summarizing the plot of JP into an article. Or a paragraph, for that matter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because you keep asking me questions here that is making me reply rather than improve the article. Imagine how much article improvement would be accomplished if so much time was not instead spent talking about whether or not they should be deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Feel free to answer them in the article rather than the AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:NOT#PLOT. It is notable fictional company appearing in the Jurassic Park series of novels and films. The article needs more sources. It would be better to improve this article instead of deleting it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jurassic Park without prejudice to merging from history - I see a bunch of claims here that just say it is notable without proving it, or that its notability is inherited from the franchise. The fact is that despite our best efforts, all the sources we've found are either from official Jurassic Park sources (books, films, etc) or from self-published sources, neither of which prove notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you check out the section labeled Reception, you'll see a few links to published books.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, I didn't see those. We should keep. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important parts of massively notable film series. GlassCobra 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the above participants in this discussion has been determined as a likely ban evading sock account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (again) central element in two best selling books, three (soon to be four) blockbuster movies. BJ^Talk 22:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:PLOT --T-rex 14:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Nublar

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot sections of the Jurassic Park movie and book articles. It has also not improved in the slightest, or shown any notability since its last AFD in December. As such, it is pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without coverage in reliable sources, this is completely unnecssary. There are several articles capable of containing relevant information. TTN (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per clear consensus in previous discussion and coverage in reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only a handful of people voted in the last AFD, and there was not an overwhelming consensus, and besides decisions can change between AFD's. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely for something that appears in incredibly notable novels, movies, and games, i.e. that is unquestionably a legitimate search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So incredibly notable that you cannot produce even one reference to establish notability through reliable sources? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure why your own searches did not turn up all of these references in published books. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean anything, you haven't established there is a single thing in those books making this article notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is a notable setting of notable games, movies, comics, and novels and is mentioned in a variety of books. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the games, movies, comics, and novels are notable, true, but that has nothing to do with a fictional island from the books. That needs to establish independent notability, and has established none so far. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something that serves as the major setting of notable games, movies, comics, and novels and that is therefore recognizable to millions of people is notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, something commented on in reliable real world sources is notable, what you are calling notable is actually "popularity". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Nublar is commented on in reliable sources. See [4], [5], [6], etc. that show multiple references in secondary sources that not all fictional places can reasonably claim and that can be used to add sections on out of universe commentary. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable plot location across a series of notable books and films. It is unfortunate no-one has improved the referencing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Key location in very successful novel and film series. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to whatever the Jurassic Park 1 article is. A location in one fictional work is a DUH merge candidate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, see Middle-earth and the offshoot links to regions (Eriador, Gondor, Misty Mountains, Anduin etc etc). If Middle-earth can get away with it, why not others? Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkiens works are much more famous, so have much more reliable sources discussing them. Middle earth was even featured because it is notable and had real world sources; the others you listed show that the Middle Earth topic needs to be consolidated just like this topic needs to be. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced in-universe plot summary/trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into the relevant novel or film article. Notability is not inherited and this is undue weight for a fictional location. WillOakland (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major locations in major fiction are suitable as subarticles. Conceivably merge to a list of locations without loss of content, but the role in this fiction is so central that it would be better to have its own article. Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content. DGG (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as in-universe and unencyclopedic. Eusebeus (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InGen (2nd nomination). yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, well documented fictional place with lots of material. Large enough to warrent it's own article. --Pmedema (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete article is entirely "in world". An actual encyclopedic article on this topic would not merely document all trivial facts relating to the fictional location, but examine why the author of the fiction chose those aspects to be that way. Without analysing the topic explicitly as a piece of fiction --and discussing the meaning of this topic in context of the work-- this is simply a collection of arbitrary facts. this article violates WP:N by WP:PLOT (note WP:PLOT is section within official policy WP:NOT). WP:PLOT reads "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." this is far in excess of a "concise plot summary". Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, given the existing plot summary at Jurassic_Park#Plot, the rest of the in-world content ought to be removed if the article isn't deleted. Per the WP policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE this article ought to be trimmed to discussion of the literary significance and meaning of the island, assuming it isn't deleted. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the sources provided (above) are enough to establish notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - as per my comments at the InGen AfD. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Focal point of massively notable film series. GlassCobra 00:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect with Isla Sorna. BJ^Talk 22:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete non notable, only merits a footnote in Jurassic Park.^MY♥_INchile 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:JNN. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, per User:A Man In Black, and per User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles --T-rex 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those last two are in favor of deletion. Would you please explain your opinion with more detail? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for deletion based on the arguments put forth by those users, not their votes --T-rex 14:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any compelling reasons for deletion in any of those arguments. Could you humor me and explain in your own words? --Explodicle (T/C) 15:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The per others was so I could avoid writing this out, but whatever. The article should be deleted because it asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot sections, A location in one fictional work is most often not notable, the arguments put forth at the previous discussion and that this is the closest anyone can find to reliable independent sources --T-rex 15:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the article does assert notability through reliable sources and is not just in-universe repetition? Also, it is not a "location in one fictional work," but it several books, movies, video games, comics, etc., and wildly notable ones at that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional work and derived works doesn't make this any better reason to keep --T-rex 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That coupled with the secondary source coverage discussed above does, however.

Keep, But... this article is in desperate need of rescue, it fails various things, but the most productive solution lies in applying the sensible advice of WP:WAF. In the absence of source based real world coverage, this will probably result in reduction of in-universe material and a merge back to the parent article. There is plenty of work for interested editors. This sort of article, with this problem, is currently very common, there is a lot of work to do, but deletions are not the way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly notable enough but article does need improving to help the rest of us understand and relate to the material. Also comparing the two islands in some ways may make sense. Banjeboi 01:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 21:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Sorna

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot sections of the Jurassic Park movie and book articles. It has also not improved in the slightest, or shown any notability since its last AFD in January. As such, it is pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and it is the articles complete lack of verifiability through real world reliable sources that is the issue. You can't move to keep on the basis of verifiability when none is demonstrated. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can get plenty of in and out of universe commentary in published books to verify the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea what is in those books, and if we have to guess, it is most likely more plot repetition. Verifiability needs to be confirmed, not guessed at, and nothing has been shown to verify this articles notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in multiple reliable sources and as part of a notable franchise is about as notable as we can get. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, actual links with pages filled with information is as good as it gets, and this isn't anywhere near that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know what more to tell you then, because just looking at the sources that come up on Google books, I see a good variety of out of universe commentary. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to actually link to the ones that might be reliable, not send other editors on what might be a wild goose chase. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example, [7], [8], etc., i.e. enough out of universe mentions in a variety of sources that suggests a real potential for the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable plot element across a series - a notable book and film at least. It is unfortunate no-one has improved the referencing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the JP series article. The entirety of the encyclopedic infomation is in the lead (It's in JP2 and 3, dinosaurs roam freely). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, see Middle-earth and the offshoot links to regions (Eriador, Gondor, Misty Mountains, Anduin etc etc). If Middle-earth can get away with it, why not others? Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't compare the current versions of articles in a case like this. I don't know about the regions, but Middle-earth obviously has the ability to become much better than the current version. With this article, not so much. TTN (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced in-universe plot summary/trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is completely unnecessary without coverage in reliable sources. There are a number of articles capable of covering it in enough detail. TTN (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into the relevant novel or film article. Notability is not inherited and this is undue weight for a fictional location. WillOakland (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major locations in major fiction are suitable as subarticles Conceivably merge to a list of locations but without loss of content. Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content. DGG (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as above as in-universe, unencyclopedic and unnecessary cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft and Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand the redirect, but why delete? There's no harm in keeping the edit history in case notability is established at some point in the future. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InGen (2nd nomination). yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect in-universe fancruft that can be covered in a more suitable parent article that does not give undue weight to this fictional location. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Please note Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft is a very handy word and I plan to keep on using it - you've already linked me to that essay once, linking me to it again is a waste of bandwidth. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching AfDs with a singular purpose is not a compelling reason for us to consider deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable location in notable series. DGG put it best (above) Hobit (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, well documented fictional place with lots of material. Large enough to warrent it's own article. --Pmedema (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete article is entirely "in world". An actual encyclopedic article on this topic would not merely document all trivial facts relating to the fictional location, but examine why the author of the fiction chose those aspects to be that way. Without analysing the topic explicitly as a piece of fiction --and discussing the meaning of this topic in context of the work-- this is simply a collection of arbitrary facts. this article violates WP:PLOT (part of the official policy WP:NOT). WP:PLOT reads "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." this is far in excess of a "concise plot summary". Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, that's why if the article isn't deleted, it should be fixed. Since there's plenty of plot summary at The_Lost_World_(Michael_Crichton)#Plot_summary etc, this article should be trimmed of all in-world content. Only the real world material ---that pertaining to the literary significance and meaning of the Island and is adequately sourced--- should be retained, per the WP policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect to Jurassic Park (franchise) - I've read the books, seen the movies, played the video games, so to me it feels notable... but I can't find any good secondary sources. The ones provided already just don't seem to be detailed enough to write an article. I'll change my mind if I come across anything more convincing. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - as per my comments at the InGen AfD. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable plot aspect of a highly notable novel/film franchise. If the franchise were less notable, a merge would be sufficient, but that's not the case here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, in-universe. Eusebeus (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a compelling reason for deletion. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if he'd said that, then your comment might be on point... Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So then "in universe" is a reason to delete? Hobit (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important part of massively notable film series. GlassCobra 20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the above participants in this discussion has been determined as a likely ban evading sock account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect with Isla Nublar. BJ^Talk 22:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor in-universe local with zero real notability --T-rex 23:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into Jurassic Park, not noteworthy at all, only merits a footnote!^MY♥_INchile 01:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly notable enough[9] but article does need improving to help the rest of us understand and relate to the material. Also comparing the two islands in some ways may make sense. Also mention the chain of islands would also benefit readers. Banjeboi 01:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 21:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Happyme22 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished Business (White Lies single)

Songs are usually not notable as per WP:MUSIC; article does not assert special notability for this song. RayAYang (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect (non-admin closure), No deletes, most were redirects. Leonard^(Bloom) 01:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say OK

This article doesn't have any relevant information. If Sneakernight was deleted, I think that should happen the same with this article Voices4ever (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song charted, so it's notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent album: Simply charting does not justify an article. Per WP:MUSIC: A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.. I think this article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub. Dribbled around at #61 and below.
Kww (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep : as per Eastmain. Europe22 (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent album per WP:MUSIC. insufficient material to warrant a separate article at this point. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent album as per Kww and Ohconfucius. (Voices4ever) 19:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to V (Vanessa Hudgens album) - not enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. --Amalthea (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a charting single, by a very notable singer --T-rex 23:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge to the album. All information in the article can be moved to the album article, and can be spun out again at a later time if it would become to large. There would be no loss of content. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Happyme22 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool Lights (EP)

The band's other album was up for deletion and was speedily kept. However, this is just a self-released EP with limited release, and therefore hasn't been covered in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable per WP:MUSIC.Kww (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Free

Per WP:BAND. No Independent reliable source proves her notability. No news on Google News (PT): [10]. I couldn't find her CD on any stores. Seems to be only an amateur singer. It was deleted once on pt-wiki: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Ana Free 1. It is under AfD again on pt-wiki: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Ana Free. Tosqueira (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Youtube-fad-wannabe. Hús ö nd 21:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Is it likely that someone who is not already a fan or the artist herself would consider this content as meriting inclusion in WP?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreftymac (talk • contribs)
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notable Artist This article does establish notability on at least 3 separate criteria as required by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC . Any one of these criterion requires keeping the article; all three of them make it indisputable. Please also note that the artist’s main following seems to be both Portuguese (via TV, radio, and concerts) and international (via YouTube). It would be helpful not to assume that all notability must be US/UK based, even though the artist does appear to have a significant fan base in those areas. In this case, the artist is a national musical icon in Portugal, largely through appearances on national Portuguese TV and radio.

10. “Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc.” - Artist’s song “20 Days” was included on FNAC Portugal’s “Special Release” compilation album to benefit cancer research (40,000 unit distribution).

11. “Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.” - Artist’s first single “In My Place” is in rotation on major Portuguese national radio network Antena 3.

12. “Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.” - Artist has been the subject of a 35 minute interview and broadcast on major Portuguese national radio networks RTP and Antena 3 (9 Jan. 2008) - http://www.nme.com/video/id/SXQRq3GPHF0/search/rtp - Artist has been the subject of a 30 minute interview and broadcast on major Portuguese national radio network Radio Clube Português (5 Jan. 2008) – http://www.radioclube.clix.pt - Artist has been the subject of a 30 minute documentary on Portuguese national TV station TVI (4 July 2007) – performance component documented here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-fpWguN17s

Based on meeting at least 3 of the criteria, I am requesting that this page be removed from the “to-be-deleted” list. (TB-Al-x (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 14:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete I fail to understand why 24000 subscribers and million of video views do not prove notability by itself. Anyhow thats just a personal thought. Here some links to neutral mass medias showing that Artist
Radio Antena 3 Blog biggest radio station in Portugal
Radio Clube Bloganother independant radio station

Both of those stations did live shows with that artist duration of 1-2 hours! There are videos of those broadcasts available on the official YT channels of those radio stations.Those radio stations also play her first single (which actually is in the stores already check out Itunes and Amazon for example). There where countrywide TV appearances on TVI Portugal and SIC Portugal. Its hard to come up with links to those past broadcasts also for copyright reasons. There is a short cut of the TVI one on that artists You Tube channel itself see here TVI Portugal. Using Google to search for Ana Free lead to 6.910.000 results. Countless Independant Blogs, Lyrics & Chords sites, Fan sites. She also had appearances in not music related Magazines such as the Soup Mag. The article itself is not available (print media) due to copyright reasons. However they did a Promo Video which is available on their Web appearance SoupMag (TB-Al-x (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 10:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:V you have to find reliable sources of criteria 10, 11 and 12. No results on Google News PT: [11]. Tosqueira (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, (self?) promotion of an amateur singer. Probably going to be deleted for the second time in PT/wiki [12]. --Nice poa (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

regarding Comment Artist appearance on Google News PT is not a good standard for judging notability in Portugal. Portuguese band Per7ume, who currently hold the number one song in the country on national radio and iTunes charts, only appears once in Google News PT – and that appearance is for a minor festival performance. However, they are known and recognized as one of the major Portuguese pop bands at the moment (and have the airplay and sales to prove it). Artists’ notability is not reflected in Google News if the artists are up-and-coming or not prone to melodrama. The artist in question (Ana Free) has video documentation (via the links provided) of national TV and radio performance in Portugal. (TB-Al-x (talk))

regarding (self?) promotion I am not Ana Free. (TB-Al-x (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 16:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I didn't find anything to fit her in WP:MUSIC but more then 1 million views! for an artist from a 10 millions habitants country seems notable per common sense. We must remember that WP:MUSIC is a guideline, not a law. Caiaffa (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, "one million views" is not even a guideline. And your definition of common sense is, well, not so common. She fails WP:MUSIC, as even you say so, and that's all we need to know. Hús ö nd 19:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One million views on Youtube. You just have to ask your friends and relatives to reload the page hundreds of times a day. Tosqueira (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TB-Al-x's reasons convinced me. Radioinfoguy (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you are a sporadic contributor. Please read WP:MUSIC in order to better grasp our concept of notability for musicians. Hús ö nd 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As per TB-Al-x, this subject has met notability guidelines. I may not meet your definition of a Wikipedia expert, but the artist has met WP:MUSIC guidelines. I vote Keep. Radioinfoguy (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I believe you should read WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. *sniff, sniff* do I smell a sockpuppet? Hús ö nd 19:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have read it, thank you. Read TB-Al-x's 10,11, and 12 above. I think what you are sniffing is Ana Free's notability. Funny how you try to discount a differing opinion. Radioinfoguy (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have read them too, and still find no reliable, verifiable sources on 10, 11, 12. It is funny indeed. Hús ö nd 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources from which to write an article. You tube hits cannot equal notability. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC:

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)

On the website of Fnac PT I couldn't find that album. That album is probably non-notable.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

According to the article: "Despite offers from major and independent labels, Ana Free is currently devoted to finishing her studies." If she refused recording, how is it possible to put her "single" in rotation? Who recorded her "single"?

12. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

No reliable sources.

In conclusion, she isn't notable yet. Delete Tosqueira (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted on pt wiki: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Ana Free. Tosqueira (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted on es wiki: [13]. Tosqueira (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted on fr wiki: [14]. Tosqueira (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - this is a borderline case, but she has not released anything yet, and the youtube numbers are not high enough to be truly outstanding --T-rex 23:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dougherty

non notable artist. fails WP:MUSIC. prod removed by ip. reason was "Artist is viable because he has had an inpact on the music scene of North Carolina, courted at one time by SubPop records, he opted to start his own label to help promote other artists and himself". Change undid by XLinkBot due to (\bmyspace\.com) Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adding 1 non-notable album by the artist

Keep - Its a badly written article by a newbie. People should be nice to newbies and help them out. But the topic itself is notable enough for me. He has his own record label, which has its own article. Before we can delete Mark Dougherty's article, we need to look at whether his record label should be wiped too. Not to mention one of his albums. While a record label he started and one of his albums have their own articles, I can't suggest deleting an article on him. Myrrideon (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created 2 years ago (by a spa). I don't think being nice to newbies applies here. The label he created (according to the article) was Lake Isle Records, not Lost Cat Records, which does not have an article here. Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only one of the four listed sources has any information about MD. The rest are are as good as dead. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to be seen, no real assertation of notability per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both artist and album fail WP:MUSIC. --neon white talk 22:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Demonstrate a good faith attempt to significantly substantiate the content with verifiable references, and it might tip the balance the other way. As it stands, this content suffers from deficiencies greater than many other articles with better references that were nonetheless deleted. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Below are the two bits of local coverage that I could find on Google News, i.e. not a lot, although the second one at least appears to be entirely about him. Can't tell about the first, but I suspect it's not only about him.

1. Reviewer ferrets out new artists,

$2.95 - Greensboro News and Record - NewsBank - Aug 22, 2007

Mark Dougherty is a Greensboro resident and musician who is attempting to make it easier to ::understand what is going on in this new day where iTunes and ...

2. Grading papers, writing songs, pondering life's journeys

$2.95 - Greensboro News and Record - NewsBank - Mar 1, 2007

At this strange time of year, between winter and spring, between cool stone and renaissance, it is quite easy to lose direction in one's own skull. Such is the music of Mark Dougherty. A singer-songwriter originally from New Jersey, Dougherty has shaped his songs in Greensboro for the past five years. Recently, he has been long at work on a new release, "Anodyne," available on iTunes and eMusic.

Voceditenore (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Can't see how Lost Cat Records passes notability per WP:CORP either. Deleting. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator never finished the process, and consensus is that albums by notable bands are themselves notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Town's Disaster

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/This Town's Disaster

No Reason Given

Keep. The editor who nominated this page failed to create a discussion page, and I didn't want to just remove the warning from the page, so I went ahead and created the discussion page myself. Nonetheless, this article meets the criteria of WP:Music. It is a notable release from a notable band that has gained substantial coverage from reliable, third-party publications, as is stated in the article. This nomination seems to be in bad faith. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Improperly made discussion, no reason for deletion from nominator. Album is on a notable label and by a notable band, so I see no reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Blackpool Lights is considered notable then an album by them can have an article. Notability of Blackpool Lights is a different question. Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 20:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truth (Keyshia Cole album)

AfDs for this article:

Unreleased future album, fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 19:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - recreation of deleted content. Nothing has changed since. Make the article if/when the album is released (and if it is a notable album!). The album could well have a different title by then or not be released, etc etc. Myrrideon (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged as such, as a repost. Ros0709 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Militaries of Ace Combat

This article is a massive, in-universe repetition of trivia from the Ace Combat articles, and has zero notability as established by reliable sources. It is therefore pure plot repetition which belongs in the Ace Combat articles, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that there are multiple AFDs on Ace Combat articles. Perhaps these should be grouped? Myrrideon (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot move to keep an article based on being a verifiable topic with real world importance when it has established no notability, no real world importance, and thus no notability. It, in fact, the reason I am nominating it for deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in a major video game franchise with published books allows for an article that can and should be referenced and that is notable (not every game series can make such claims). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to prove notability, not hint at it, guess at it, suggest it might exist. That is what verifiability is all about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I provided a link to multiple books that demonstrate the notability of aspects of this franchise. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to link to a single book that demonstrates it, demonstrating being the key word. Otherwise, you have nothing but idle speculation of its possible notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The games themselves are notable and I believe we can use the guides as well as reviews to expand on coverage on the militaries. I believe if we also consider previews and reviews we can fix up the article accordingly, i.e. that it has reasltic potential, which is why I oppose deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is impressive, 127 references to the same non-source. Anyway. Clean with a chainsaw and upmerge, pretty basic WP:N failure but there's no mention of the nations in Ace Combat, the parent series article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge a few paragraphs as stated above. The topics itself is not covered in third party reliable sources, so it doesn't need an article. TTN (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's mostly filled with fancruft. Martarius (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ITSCRUFT and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every reference is to a primary source or a wikipedia page. No secondary source covers the article subject in significant detail. Notability is not asserted (really) or established by the article and is most certainly not inherited from the parent article. As always, if a reliable, independent source is shown that establishes notability, I'll be happy to !vote keep. Protonk (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good work has been done verifiying and sourcing some of this content, and it appears necessary to comprehensive coverage of Ace Combat. Everyking (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete prime example of cruft a_{nd yes I will use the term so don't waste your bandwidth linking to articles telling me not to,} all sources are primary - no third party reliable sources. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already established that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not a bad article, mostly primary sources but some others, enough to meet WP:V for certain. Whoever placed the 3000 tags on the article should be wacked. That's just POINTY. Hobit (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some reviews discuss the plot including things in the article. http://www.gamebump.com/go/gh_preview_ace_combat_zero_the_belkan_war_ps21 for example. Most are short, but you can likely construct a fair bit of the article from these. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In respect to the link you provided specifically, there's no critical reception. The only comments they make in regards to the militaries is a rehashing of the plot. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. But that's a secondary source (among many) for the plot parts of this article. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't mean anything in terms of notability, but sure. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does, the "plot" of the militaries are discussed in a RS. Not the best source for this article, but it goes toward notability. And my point is, there are a lot of them (just search) Hobit (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a passing mention that does nothing but provide a rehash of the plot, then no, it doesn't constitute notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that notability guidelines don't address if the point of coverage was plot or something else. The passing reference point would be a valid point, but I think it is more than passing in many of these reviews. But that is more a matter of opinion. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage has to go beyond "X did this" or a simple repeat of what the plot is. If it does nothing but that, then there's no notability asserted because there's no critical coverage (i.e. "The inclusion of X in the game adds depth to the plot"). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no critical coverage from reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major elements of major games are suitable as subarticles. I assume this game is important enough, but I do not have any knowledge oon that point. Primary sources are adequate for articles like this--the notability has to be only for the game. DGG (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "the notability has to be only for the game.". This directly contradicts WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The topic in question is, clearly, Militaries of Ace Combat not Ace Combat itself. Otherwise I could justify an article on My character's pet in World of Warcraft citing World of Warcraft's notability. -Rushyo ^Talk 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scavenge then Delete: Doesn't meet notability requirements, some content is definately salvageable though. Please read WP:N for the criteria for including something. This does not meet it. -Rushyo ^Talk 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Guys and gals, I find some of the comments above to be not assuming good faith at all... with some even bordering on personal attacks. I'm sure we all agree that there will be some degree of reference/notability to Militaries (sic) involved in Ace Combat, the question here I believe is: "Do we need this as part of comprehensive listings on Ace Combat?". Could we reasonably expect to find sources to assert notability for this? (Not "prove this is notable", or "too hard to find sources"; the question is could one reasonably expect to find such sources). Icemotoboy (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It looks like the article was originally a flat list of aircraft and the prose grew up around it. Unfortunately, the prose that is there mostly consists of speculation and assorted observations about each military. If there's a sane way of tackling the Ace Combat universe, this isn't it. Nifboy (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are reasons to fix, not delete. Hobit (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not opposed to a sane means of describing the Ace Combat universe, complete with ancillary articles, I don't believe there's anything salvagable here. Fixing it would be roughly equivalent to scrapping it and starting over. Nifboy (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: completely fails the WP:GNG which requires significant coverage by secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Also, a great deal of information here violates WP:GAMECRUFT because it goes into so much detail about weaponry that it verges on WP:GAMEGUIDE material. (Although this is really an issue of notability: if the weapons in the game are notable in compliance with the WP:GNG, then of course they should be included.) A complete violation of WP:NOT. Randomran (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that the notability guidelines are under strong scrutiny. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. And it complete satisfies what Wikipedia is. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read carefully, my argument is much more than "it's cruft". Did you stop reading after the word "because"? This is a word you could stand to use much more yourself. Randomran (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Translation: no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What we have are such IGN articles as "Ace Combat 4: Shattered Skies: Check out a complete list of secondary weapons and a new SU-37 wallpaper image," which as the title suggests provides out of universe preview comments specifically on the weapons (obviously aspects of the militaries of the game). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We have a list of objects appearing in the game, a description of the gameplay, and not a single mention of the military groups in the games at all. That's a bad reference for AC4, and utterly inapplicable to this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's definitely enough where I'm thinking after looking again at the nations article, which is more or less a stub, that we can and perhaps should merge the two perhaps under a different title. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't talk about the nations, either, other than in the (completely useless as a source) copy-pasted press release at the bottom. The only editorial content in the article is about gameplay and story impressions, which fit into AC4's article but not really anywhere else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll have to check some of my back issues of game magazines again over the weekend as I recall reading some information on the topic that is further making me think we can in some manner or other combine the short nations article with this one. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. Why don't we create a "Universe of Ace Combat" page, and merge all this and the other articles into it. I think we can all agree there is at the very least a little information in each of the articles that we could make into one useful article. I'm not a fan of putting it all into the Ace Combat article, as it is big enough already. I'd be prepared to help out with such a project. Icemotoboy (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this. I've just finished tidying the AC6 article, and found it disappointing that the supporting in-game aircraft article had been deleted. All four universe articles can be tidied and merged to support the games. Thedarxide (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand my point, I believe the Universe of Ace Combat is notable as the universe that Ace Combat has is discussed in many, many of the Ace Combat articles. These articles do not go into a significant depth, therefore, we will probably not go into such depth either. But I am sure with many areas to cover we will want to keep it brief. While the individual components of the universe may not be notable in themselves, their wider collection is. This is much as a company may be notable, but its many products may not be. I believe putting the universe detail inside the main article would detract from it (much like we split out History of Microsoft Flight Simulator from the Microsoft Flight Simulator article. Icemotoboy (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is already to long though, how will that new article fare? the_ed 17 22:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Hobit and DGG. Mathmo ^Talk 05:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines inappropriate content - lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts - this sort of content and particularly the level of detail is more appropriate for a gameplay manual. Further, the content seems to come solely from the games' manuals or personal observation (e.g. all the things seen in-game) — i.e. the information is not sufficiently notable to be found anywhere else. The article also contains much speculation - e.g. By 2010, probably because it possesses a much smaller coastline, or due to sanctions by the Allied forces, ... and This is probably due to the fact that ... -- Jll (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those are surmountable concerns given the sources discussed above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My principal objection is my first one — that Wikipedia no more needs a detailed list of what weapons and equipment are found in the games than it needs an illustrated parts list for a Mitsubishi Pajero. It is outside the scope of an encyclopedia because it is fine detail only relevent, or even meaningful, to people who play the games (or own the vehicle). Jll (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One of the above participants in this discussion has been determined as a likely ban evading sock account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Hobit, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and DGG. the_ed 17 22:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as useless junk. While there are over 100 sources, not one is independent. Furthermore there is no claim to be notable, and very little that is out of universe. Also wikipedia is not a game guide. As such this fails WP:NOONECARES, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:INUNIVERSE, and probably a good 20 or so more --T-rex 23:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all of which are not valid reasons for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete purely in universe and entirely original research and speculation. No independent source has ever written about this topic, this article amounts to nothing more than a detailed plot study. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated above independent sources have addressed this topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important Comment In retrospec, this page was built to coexist with a "List of the nations of Ace Combat" page, and the use of this page will all depend upon whether or not the nations page is kept. If we can keep the "nations" page, maybe we will be able to condense and merge this one into it.Rogue Commander (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure game guide material with no assertion nor evidence of real-world notability. Reasons for deletion include "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" (Wikipedia is not a game guide) and "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" (no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). --Stormie (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The non-game guide material asserts and presents evidence of real-world notability and there really aren't any valid reasons for deletion given that it meets the notability guidelines and has sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of the subejct. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Plummer

Contested PROD by IP user, no reason given. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully pro-league/competition --Jimbo^[online] 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the James Bennett (footballer) for the same reasons. PROD was deleted by IP user with no explanation, but page was reverted by another user. --Jimbo^[online] 19:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both As far as I can find neither have made an appearance for a senior team, and thus both fail WP:Athlete Vickser (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, does not meet WP:ATHLETE at present. RFerreira (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of nations of Ace Combat

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is just repetition of minor plot points from the various Ace Combat video games. It is therefore duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Delete. Completely agree! I was waiting for someone to start this discussion! Rogue Commander (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Rogue. How 'bout we restore the former/old version of this article per my argument here instead? the_ed 17 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the old article was better! Keep the old version per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. the_ed 17 21:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notabilitty has nothing to do with this lists. This is just a redirect target for various nations linked from various Ace Combat articles. It was created instead of separate articles per country, which were indeed nonnotable. It is a kind of glossary, useful for cross-referencing, since mosth of these countries are used in several games. Also, the nominator seems to cut and paste numerous nominations without much thinking. This article has no "repetition of minor plot points"; as I said, it is a glossary. `'Míkka >t 23:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply false; notability applies to all articles; in terms of articles notability requirements, there are no "sub articles" or any other exemption from that requirement that can be pointed to by policy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not policy, it is a mere guideline. Therefore if the particular topic is not xplicitely mentioned, it means people much talk in essence not in "letter of law". But if you want to supersede common sense by hard wikilawyering, good luck. `'Míkka >t 15:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The common sense logic behind WP:N is less "Wikipedia can't possibly cover every single person, object, place, and idea" and "It's not practical to write articles about subjects about which no reliable third-party sources have seen fit to comment." You can slap whatever tags you want on WP:N, but citing it is a challenge to any opposition to suggest where we can get sources to write this article (or come up with some way of writing such articles without sources that isn't pure plot summary or original research or both.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable), and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability lies with the game series, which this is a subarticle of. I guess the parent article is only 13 kb so could be merged. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious upmerge to Ace Combat. That article could do with a section on the militaries/nations/organizations, since they're the main actors in the series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete It's small enough to fit within the main article if there is currently nothing better. If a better section is added, it can just be deleted. Without coverage in reliable sources, it does not need an article. TTN (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited (WP:GNG as well as WP:TOYS). The only source referenced is not reliable. If the content was based on sources that were reliable, we could merge it into the main article on the series. As it stands, I'm not inclined to do that--the main article already needs sourcing help but is free from too much WP:GAMEGUIDE content). the notability of the parent article, motives of the nominator or type of page (list/article) have nothing to do with the debate at hand. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. or upmerge to parent. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important part of important game. Reasonable breakout article. Reviews (for example) tend to assume the reader knows about the various nations (http://www.gamebump.com/go/gh_preview_ace_combat_zero_the_belkan_war_ps21 for example). Hobit (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major elements of major games are suitable as subarticles. I assume this game is important enough, but I do not have any knowledge oon that point. DGG (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?!? (merge) Are we all looking at the same article here? All I see is a list of "This country is a fictional country that featured in This Game". There's no content and I'm reasonably sure the plot summaries of each game would be so kind as to mention which nations are in conflict. It's a list for the sake of being a list. Nifboy (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And older AfD may be of interest here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nations of Ace Combat. Nifboy (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very interesting. Probably no need to slap a G4 tag on this, but I can't imagine the recreation addresses to deletion reasons for the original article. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we can temporarily undelete the other article to see if it is indeed the same content or if in fact it is different content that can be used to merge both articles? Maybe we have enough spread out on both versions that would make for something mutually acceptable. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. User:Jonny-mt, the deleting administrator, appears active today. We could ask him to userify it or restore a history only version. but if we restore it and it comes up as significantly similar to the current article, that doesn't bode well. I'll post a message in a sec. Protonk (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Protonk (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um. I can see the old one, and it's nothing like this. I declined to G4 it, I imagine he will, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the old version better, worse, mergeable? --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the history behind the current redirect, so feel free to use it in this discussion. I agree that the old article is different enough from the current one that WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply. --jonny-m t 04:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The old version (quick link) doesn't help; it's got all the same problems the other Ace Combat articles under discussion do, predominately a lack of any sort of context. On a side note, several of the images on that version are tagged as Public Domain, which I'm pretty sure isn't right, since they're fictional nations (and hence under copyright). Nifboy (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: completely fails the WP:GNG which requires significant coverage by secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Randomran (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability guidelines are totally disputed at present and it has sufficient enough coverage for Wikipedia as addressed above. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Copy-pasting that they're "totally disputed" in three articles doesn't make it true. They're not in any sense totally disputed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The talk pages suggest otherwise. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Funny, I see an attempt by you to mark the guideline as defunct, and a groundswell of opposition to that terrible idea. "I don't like it" does not translate into "It is totally disputed." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (unindent, for readability)
- I'm not the only one who regards it as an unacademic, ineffective way of deciding content inclusion, which is why people are drafting RfCs on it (see Wikipedia talk:Notability) to discuss much needed reform. Maybe some agree on some kind of notability as a measure of inclusion, but what those standards are lack consensus in the various discussions I have seen. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're in a vocal minority that has ceased to have much luck disposing of it. The recent RFC was to loosen the restrictions for fiction articles, and it went down in flames. Up is not down, black is not white, minority opposition to the status quo does not negate a general consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see a vocal minority in these and other discussions. A much larger number of editors, i.e. a majority, work on and read these articles in question and I respect their efforts and opinions even when unspoken. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then create an RFC and get WP:N marked historical when you form a consensus to do so. I don't expect it'll be successful, and until you do, do not describe WP:N as "totally disputed." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It looks on the talk page that both Masem and Randomran are trying to do that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (unindent for readability)
  - Okay. In the meantime, don't do deceptive crap like describing it as "totally disputed" when people are still figuring out how they're going to draft an RFC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be dishonest if I were to just act as if it has real support and is not interpreted quite differently in practice. Something need not have a disputed tag on it to actually be contested. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do not disrupt AFDs with by describing guidelines as "totally disputed" because someone is considering proposing an RFC that may or may not result in changes to the guideline. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a number of people working on changes as seen on the talk page, but in any event in a case like this where there is clearly editorial and reader interest, coupled with the topic appearing in multiple games and being covered by a variety of reliable sources, I think we can reasonably see some notability of the present topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So where's the discussion that resulted in a consensus to mark WP:N as {{historical}} or {{failed}}? (Answer: nowhere.)
        "being covered by a variety of reliable sources"
        NOW we're back to the actual business of an AFD. What reliable sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In addition to the strategy guides, which are reliable primary sources, reviews of the games, which are reliable secondary sources, also mention the nations of the Ace Combat series. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay. What reviews of the games? What strategy guides have useful, non-gameguide content for this article? You're making the claim that reliable sources exist for writing this article, so you've clearly done the research to find some. Or were you making an empty, uninformed claim? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not all games have published strategy guides; thus for me having strategy guides is a sign of notability for a game and coverage of its fictionl elements in both the game and the strategy guides expands on that notability. In most reviews of the games, you do get some mention on the nations involved. Some might say, for example, that one nation's air force is more maneuverable than another's or other such comments in the various reviews of the various games that I believe can and should be used to improve the game. Put simply, I do not believe the article "can't" be fixed. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay. Can you add a single referenced claim to this article other than "Such-and-such nation appears in such-and-such game" (an inane claim we can put in the game articles) or "Such-and-such nation has such-and-such weapons" (which is game-guide material we can also put in the game articles, or, you know, omit because it's game guide material? Do you have a single reference that talks about the nations collectively, rather than mentioning the nations as parts of individual games? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's definitely enough where I'm thinking after looking again at the militaries, which is more extensive than this in effect stub, that we can and perhaps should merge the two perhaps under a different title. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:VGSCOPE, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOTE. Hardly any material to merge, but I wouldn't oppose that either. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one article Merge the four supporting articles into one Universe of Ace Combat article Thedarxide (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just Delete it as nn, pillar-violating, unencyclopedic cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article passes the five pillars, is notable, and is encyclopedic. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Hobit, Mikka and DGG. Mathmo ^Talk 05:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in article Universe of Ace Combat as per Thedarxide. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the above participants in this discussion has been determined as a likely ban evading sock account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as significant part of a notable game series, and orthogonal to the games themselves. The article needs to be expanded to provide a concise summary of each fictional nation and what happens to it through the game series. I would also support the merging of the articles into Universe of Ace Combat but I have big problems with the level of detail in the Militaries of Ace Combat article and the scope of the List of Ace Combat characters. Jll (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim to be notable. Furthermore it isn't notable --T-rex 22:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. The original versions of this page nave been found?! There just maybe hope!Rogue Commander (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure game guide material with no assertion nor evidence of real-world notability. Reasons for deletion include "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" (Wikipedia is not a game guide) and "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" (no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). --Stormie (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The non-game guide material asserts and presents evidence of real-world notability and there really aren't any valid reasons for deletion given that it meets the notability guidelines and has sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of the subejct. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ace Combat characters

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the characters sections of the Ace Combat articles. It is therefore duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the pages have character sections, and if they do, they are useless for info. I will go back and check to make sure. Straange, this is the last page I expected to be put up for deletion. 74.196.178.8 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that kind of information would be appropriate in the game articles they come from; the point is, they should not be all clumped together here, as they do not have any notability apart from the games they come from. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your view, and believe it should be taken into consideration. I for a while had been wondering whether we could move info on characters from certain games to those game pages. I think this info could be moved to game pages, but I like to wait to have others reign in on this first. Rogue Commander (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; by this definition, you are saying that Characters of Halo should be deleted too (it, too, has next to zero reliable sources)... and I don't think that's going to happen. Just because the Ace Combat series isn't as popular as some other game series dosen't mean that we have to delete everything but the game articles themselves. the_ed 17 20:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a laugh, there is a Featured article on Master Chief, let alone GA's on all the other major characters, so there is massive amounts of reliable sources for that, this has ZERO. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A)That was the best I could find quickly. B) Halo is, for sure, much more popular than Ace Combat, so many, MANY more people will write about it C) So we should have no information at all about the characters? An article like this, though it is about a video game series that is not the most popular (though even close to a bust) should not be deleted. It's not like no one will ever look at this--I'm sure that many people do...is there even an Ace Combat wiki that does not have all of its info copied from here? the_ed 17 04:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda the breaks. Halo doesn't just have featured articles due to popularity with editors (though that is a BIG reason). If we tried to FA an article which had no secondary sourcing it would go down in flames. There is indeed an acecombat wiki. If this article had significant coverage in independent sources, we wouldn't seek to delete it. As it stands, it has to be improved or removed. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The major reason is its widespread popularity! I think that even slightly popular games should have a place here for the games and their components, as people will come here looking for them. the_ed 17 17:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this article asserted no notability through any reliable sources. It would be greatly appreciated if you would read the nominating rationale and respond to that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the article currently is adequately referenced is not always key, it's the realistic potential of reliable sources, and they do indeed exist. Moreover, we can use other sources to cover out of universe reception as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic as a whole has no specific coverage in reliable sources. The game articles all should have plot sections to cover the characters, so there is certainly no reason to pile them onto a single page. TTN (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Maybe somewhere, someone has written a review saying something like "hey this game ace combat has these 3-4 main characters...", then this list could be preserved with about 1/10th of the content. But as it stands, none of the characters are notable--this ought to set of red flags that the list is in fact NOT navigational (as it does not order topics among which the reader may navigate) but is instead a collection of objects. Right now, the sourcing on this list (for just the parts that are supported by sources) is thin and not strictly reliable (in that cast/char lists in IMdb are borderline and one of the sources is a broken link to a japanese modeler page). Beyond that, no independent source covers the list topic in any detail whatsover. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete: The list itself says very few of these characters appear in more than one game. Per TTN, the plot summary of each game would be sufficient to cover the characters in their entirety. Nifboy (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: completely fails the WP:GNG which requires significant coverage by secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Article is based on primary sources which are insufficient. "Teamxbox" does not have sufficient editorial review to be considered a reliable source. And a brief mention of a few characters at 1up is not enough qualify as significant coverage. As per WP:MOVIE, IMDB is not considered significant coverage of nearly anything. Randomran (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is completely disputed at present. It is sufficient coverage in sources by any reasonable standards. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not completely disputed. All proposals to get rid of it have failed. There are proposals to amend it. But until that point, you're stuck with the guideline as it is, which this article completely fails. Randomran (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article completely passes the guideline by covering characters with appearances in multiple mainstream games and covered in multiple reliable sources, i.e. regardless of the disputed nature of the fine points of the guideline, this subject is notable enough even as is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There aren't two references that meet the WP:GNG. That's the problem. Randomran (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Without any doubt the combination of the coverage in the strategy guides coupled with such secondary sources as this meets the general notability guidelines. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Strategy guides are authorized by the owner of the copyright in Ace Combat. That violates the "independence" requirement of the WP:GNG. Randomran (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is why we use them in conjunction with the other sources discussed above that are independent. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I looked into teamxbox -- that's a site that's affiliated with IGN. Assuming it's reliable, you still need one more. It's reliable secondary sources, not reliable secondary source. Randomran (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The many reviews and previews of the individual games also address the characters. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I haven't seen any that cover the characters in any significant way. According to the WP:GNG, trivial coverage is not enough. The WP:GNG gives an example of the difference between trivial and substantial. Find some substantial coverage. Randomran (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        They cover them in significant enough way for our purposes. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't just say it. Prove it. Where's this significant coverage in GNG-appropriate resources? I haven't seen them, and they're not included in the current article. Randomran (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I already have above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No you haven't. You've produced the team xbox article, which is one source. Even if I concede that meets the GNG requirements, that's still not multiple GNG-appropriate sources. You need at least one more. Randomran (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And referenced other sources as well, i.e. reviews of the game, such as this that provide out of universe comments on characters. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's still not substantial coverage. It's a reviewer praising the storyline. It doesn't provide adequate research for ~40 characters. "Substantial" means we could actually write an article from it, rather than providing 2 sentences in the reception section. You found an article that would be useful for the "reception" section in the main Ace Combat 5 article, but nothing that would allow us to write a list of characters article that meets wikipedia's guidelines such as WP:NOT, WP:NOTE, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:PRIMARY and so on. Randomran (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It satisfies all those. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:PROVEIT. Randomran (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I already have. I can show someone a banana and say it's a banana and if they still want to refuse to believe it's a banana, then there's not much more I can say. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one article Merge the four supporting articles into one Universe of Ace Combat article Thedarxide (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...that would be one loooong article. the_ed 17 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Judgesurreal777. Mere crufty trivia, as explicated above and no demonstrable notability per our First pillar, viz: WP:NOT. Eusebeus (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Please note WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSCRUFT. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - He didn't merely rely on per nom or cruft. He said the article hasn't demonstrated notability. Which is true. It hasn't. Randomran (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is false, because characters that appear in multiple games and are covered in reliable sources are notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If we were to cut the list down only to characters that have appeared in more than one game, we'd be left with, by my count, four characters. Nifboy (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wouldn't the main character(s) warrant a mention in the article, too? (Even if they appear in only one game, say Blaze from AC5 or Mobius 1 from AC4) (I have no idea...honest question.) the_ed 17 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        All the player-character entries look the same: A legendary ace of unknown origins/name, single-handedly defeats (insert antagonists of that game here), little other information is known. It's already covered in all the detail necessary in, for example, "the player takes on the role of an Osean Air Defense Force (OADF) trainee named Blaze," from AC5. Nifboy (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the_ed17. Mathmo ^Talk 05:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability via significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. The TeamXbox link is a rehash of the plot - there's no critical coverage. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews of the game provide the critical coverage. For example, "The only kind of character development you’re going to get on Talisman is how you perform in missions, and this setup actually works." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sufficient out-world notability is demonstrated. DigitalC (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Request fulfilled. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's one source of questionable significance. You need at least two sources, let alone some out-of-universe critical coverage. Randomran (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - See my response to Sephiroth above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem for me with this article is that I can't believe there are - is it 62? - notable or prominent characters! As it stands I think this is Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines Excessive fictional details: A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed. I would also support merging the articles together into what hopefully would become a concise Universe of Ace Combat article (although I have big problems with the level of detail in the Militaries of Ace Combat). Jll (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:FANCRUFT --T-rex 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people who play ~~or see an ad~~ for these games will come here looking for this...I don't think that it only applies to "only to a small population of enthusiastic fans". the_ed 17 23:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they will be looking for Ace Combat. Furthermore if they really are looking for this information, it is ok if they don't find it. --T-rex 00:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be okay if they didn't find it, as it is not life or death. =) I guess that they probably wouldn't be looking specifically for this, at least to start. But what if they got curious after looking at the Ace Combat article or one of the g a m e's article's..where else would they be able to find stuff such as this?the_ed 17 00:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but hopefully not on wikipedia --T-rex 01:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why not? If it applies to more than just "a small population of enthusiastic fans", why not have it on Wikipedia? the_ed 17 01:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that, no it does not apply to more than just a small population of enthusiastic fans. --T-rex 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment:The page that you linked is "...an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may follow it or not, at your discretion." It is not a wikipedia policy or guideline. DigitalC (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is fine given that it is in reply to another essay given as the sole basis for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to mirror the "Sonic Problem". Listen guys, I will just split the article and put all the characters in their associated gaming articles. Does that sound good to you?Rogue Commander (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 21:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is consensus below that the subject does not have non-trivial references to third-party reliable sources. If anyone wants to transwiki this or work on it in userspace then please contact me. Hut 8.5 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tzeentch

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of the Warhammer series articles. It is duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot move to keep an article based on being a verifiable topic with real world importance when it has established no notability, no real world importance, and thus no notability. It, in fact, the reason I am nominating it for deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titular characters covered in multiple publications are verifiable and notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to prove notability, not hint at it, guess at it, suggest it might exist. That is what verifiability is all about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I have proven it with reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source you have provided is either a search index, which is not applicable. Or Liber Chaotica, Vol. 4: Tzeentch, which is reliable and non-trivial. But published by Black Library, which is a subsidiary of games workshop and thus not independent. Taemyr (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This can be covered in one sentence in a parent article, we don't need this level of silliness. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If so, then we should merge and redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay? We need to delete all of the words in this article. I don't care even in the slightest what happens to the article history. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article history is helpful for RfAs and DRVs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can't imagine how, but whatever. It could be saved if you found some references to reliable third-party sources to back your claim of "notability to a real-world audience". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In RfA's when one sees that a candidate worked to improve an article under discussion even if it was deleted, then it makes challenging them as just voting in AfDs much harder. I found this on Google news and they are also discussed in books. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The latter book is an official artbook, lacking in factual claims of any sort. The former link is an in-passing mention in a press release. Both flunk the "third party" and "references" scratch tests. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The appearances in titular roles and different kinds of media persuade me nevertheless, i.e. [15], [16], and [17] all suggest that somehow or other this article's title is pervasive enough in popular culture to be in miniatures, in books, in music and in titular roles. Plus, we do find the occasional reference elsewhere. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The first is an object, no factual claims to be found. ~~The second is an artbook, no factual claims to be found.~~ The second is a licensed role-playing game guide, not a source for factual articles in an encyclopedia article. The third is a song, which is again not a source of factual claims. The last is (wait for it) an excerpt of back-cover copy from a Warhammer sourcebook, on sale right now at a Games Workshop Store near you! I want to write articles. You have a receptive fan; I played 40K for five or six years. But I can see through bullshit "this word appears in passing a few times" and actual, material references we can use to write articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary sources (and affiliated "official" sourcebooks such as the ones Roi keeps spamming these AfDs with) can be used to verify content but not to establish notability. There are not enough reliable and independent sources to warrant this subject having its own article, and most of the content in unsalvageably in-universe. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no notability - can be covered in the umbrella article chaos gods. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not asserted, so it has no need for an article. TTN (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tranwiki and delete. Notability isn't asserted in the article through the presence of independent third party references. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We cannot rest an article on the promise that an "encyclopedia" of the Warhammer fantasty world will contain significant description of this particular member of the pantheon. If, in the future, some editor secures that book and recreates the article, I'm sure it won't be a problem. As it stands we have the hint of sourcing for one portion of the article (as the article's focus is clearly on the 40K universe). Also, once WHO comes out, there will be some more 'secondary' sourcing for that universe, so the article may be recreated then. As it stands, in the here and now, this article fails WP:N. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability via coverage by independent sources, which all the primary sources used in the article and noted in this discussion are not. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major figures in major games are suitable as subarticles. I assume this game is important enough. Conceivably merge to a combination article without loss of content, but the individual figure seems it might be suitable.. Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content. People should be able to look up the name of a significant character in any notable game or fiction and find some information. That's what we're here for, and nobody does it better. I dont see the point of trying to diminish coverage of the things we do best. There's other areas that need increased coverage, but deleting this wont help them. Stopping afds of this sort so people can write articles is what would help improve the more conventionally serious content. DGG (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no; there are now dozens of MediaWiki installations dedicated to reiterating Games Workshop's intellectual property which "do it better" than Wikipedia, because Wikipedia has (at least notional) guidelines which discourage it. In this case you don't even appear to have personally established whether the game is notable enough (per your "assumption"), which basically means you're defending it for the sake of disrupting AfDs which use WP:FICTION as the primary rationale. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note, regarding WP:FICTION, as stated at the top of that page: "The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." Thus, no one needs to actually follow it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is correct, we have to stick with what has consensus. Namely WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#PLOT, the exceptions that WP:FICTION pushes for is moot. Taemyr (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep There are a variety of independent sources which discuss the Chaos gods. For example if I'm not mistaken, Tzeentch is discussed in the book David Anderegg's "Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them". That said, if people consider that insufficient, merging makes far more sense than deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That book has an excerpt from a GW book, as part of describing the obsessiveness of GW's fans. It doesn't actually have any factual claims about this character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. This game character has not received non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, published sources. — Satori Son 21:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn fancruft, as we used to be able to say back in the day when presented with the kind of stuff that was beyond the purview of an encyclopedia. Eusebeus (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Organizations of Ace Combat

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot sections of the Ace Combat series articles. As such, it is duplicative, massively trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well this page has needed clean up for a long time, just never got around to doing it. This worked well when we had a nation's page. I guess we could try to move some of this info to other pages. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated Judge. Rogue Commander (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot move to keep an article based on being a verifiable topic with real world importance when it has established no notability, no real world importance, and thus no notability. It, in fact, the reason I am nominating it for deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations that appear in multiple recognizable games that sell millions of copies around the world are covered in the games themselves and in published strategy guides and that are familiar to millions of people are notable by any reasonable standard. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply false; Wikipedia has standards of verifiability, and this article has yet to find even one reference that would prove notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented plenty of references that prove notability. You can claim a bananna is not a bananna, but that doesn't mean it isn't. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have presented not one link to any cite demonstrating actual notability, not now, and never in any previous AFD. You have linked to random google searches and to "encyclopedias" that are really pure plot repetition and which you have no idea what the contents are. You must Prove notability, not indirectly suggest other editors are being lazy for not seeing these "references" you have discovered. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is look at the many published guides that cover the series for reliable sources and also consider the many published reviews of the relevant games as well. There needs to be an urgent and compelling reason to delete an article and when there's realistic potential we default to keep. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constantly increasing the quality of the encyclopedia is a very compelling and urgent reason to eliminate content that fails to meet out policies. And again, you refer to "guides" you have never read, and have no idea their contents, for proof of verifiability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I whole heartedly agree that constantly increasing the quality of the encyclopedia is key to these discussions, but my opinion is that it does not definitively fail policies and that we provide a real service by covering this information in some details. I've read enough strategy guides to know what kind of information they cover. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Ace Combat after a chainsaw cleaning. This has some stuff we can use, just too much detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge a few paragraphs as stated above. Notability is not asserted, so it doesn't require an article either way. TTN (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's mostly filled with fancruft. Martarius (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:ITSCRUFT and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable, independent sources are cited in this article. The GOAL of this encyclopedia is to record secondary and tertiary reporting, not to provide a means to report primary results. When the subject of this list is covered in reliable, secondary publications, we may keep it. The parent subject (Ace Combat) does not provide notability to daughter elements. The article does not establish notability from sourcing itself. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "In truth, the aim of an encyclopédie is to collect all knowledge scattered over the face of the earth...All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia and "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you reply to me with those two quotes? Protonk (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In you post above, you capitalized your personal opinion of what the goal of encyclopedia is. As you and I have exchanged friendly quotations before, I thought you might be interested in what other encyclopedists laid out as the goals of such projects. As such it shows that a notable aspect of a notable game series is an element of human knowledge with real world interest to readers and editors and thus we provide humanity with a service by covering such knowledge in a comprehensive fashion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major aspects or settings in major series or games or the like are suitable as subarticles. I assume this one is important enough, but I do not have any knowledge on that point. This is the right sort of combination article. Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content. DGG (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Correction As per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, WP:NOTE, and WP:GAMECRUFT, new articles should not be spun out if they don't meet the WP:GNG. Also see the essay WP:INHERITED. Randomran (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is inherited and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't. There's no policy or guideline that says notability is inherited, except for a few careful exceptions in WP:MUSIC and WP:BOOK, but there is no such exception for games. And kindly stop trying to censor me. Randomran (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is and there are always exceptions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        An editor comment is not a policy or guideline. Show me a policy or guideline. Randomran (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nor is the essay you cited about inherited notability, which oddly enough gives "Delete UNESCO can not be notable because it's the UN which is notable, and notability is not inherited." as an example of an argument to avoid. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's why I produced WP:VGSCOPE and WP:AVOIDSPLIT, and contrasted them with WP:MUSIC and WP:BOOK. Notability cannot be inherited for this article, because every guideline that we have is against that. Randomran (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an incomprehensible mix of backstory, contextless plot summaries, and speculation (ex. "This organization seems to be an allegory to the League of Nations created by Versailles Treaty."). The Ace Combat Wiki does a better job organizing and maintaining this information without coming into conflict with Wikipedia's values. Nifboy (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: completely fails the WP:GNG which requires significant coverage by secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Article is completely written with primary sources, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT by going beyond a concise summary, and for this to be but a concise part of larger coverage of the fictional work. Related to notability: there are no secondary sources that cover this topic enough to provide any WP:NOT#PLOT information to make this comply with wikipedia policy. Randomran (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The GNG is totally disputed at present and it is consistent with what Wikipedia is. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:N is not totally disputed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking at it's talk page, alternate proposals, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_against_notability a whole category of editors, suggests that it is. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - And look at how each effort to replace or remove it goes down in flames. Calling WP:N totally disputed is either hopelessly mistaken at best or a blatant lie at worst. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The variety of discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability demonstrate it's lack of support among many members of the community, including admins and others who have been around longer than I have. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay. In the meantime, it enjoys a consensus of support from the vast majority of the community, and the vocal minority of opposition has had little luck shifting more to their view. WP:CON doesn't, never did, and hopefully never will necessarily mean "unanimity". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Unless we poll the community, I see no evidence that "the vast majority" actually supports it, rather only a vocal minority in certain discussions. Far more editors have worked on say this article or have come to viist it than have commented in the AfD. I assume in good faith that those editors and readers believe the article is consistent with what they as members of the community believe Wikipedia is and count them among those arguing to keep and who believe the article is notable enough for our project. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you're so sure that WP:N does not have consensus support, start an RFC. I can't imagine it'll be successful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It looks on the talk page that Masem and Randomran are already working on one. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay. In the meantime, don't do deceptive crap like describing it as "totally disputed" when people are still figuring out how they're going to draft an RFC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not going to pretend that something that is moving toward multiple drafts of RfCs following varied and diverse proposals for reform is not disputed. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Do not disrupt AFDs with by describing guidelines as "totally disputed" because someone is considering proposing an RFC that may or may not result in changes to the guideline. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not one person considering it, it is multiple people in multiple threads on the talk pages. And again, as pertains to this particular subject, organizations that appear in multiple games that are covered in reliable sources are reasonably notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Is there a discussion somewhere that resulted in a consensus to mark WP:N as historical or failed? Until you can respond to that with "Yes, and here it is," do not disrupt AFD with this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I see no consensus regarding the fine points of notability, because one would have to think that fictional organizations appearing in a mainstream franchise that can and should be better sourced is reasonably understood as notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It has been a guideline since November 2006. Now, did you have some sort of argument that had something to do with this article, or were you going to continue with cloudcookoolander descriptions of long-standing guidelines? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Why are you still trying to keep the discussion off-topic? If you notice in my two posts above, both my final sentences comment on why I think the article is notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay. What reliable sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The combination of published strategy guides and reviews of the games that mention the organization. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which strategy guides and which reviews? Surely you wouldn't waste everyone's time with the uninformed claim that sources that can be used to write this article exist without actually finding some. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Any of the guides that turn up at [18] or reviews that turn up at [19] can be mined for information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nuh uh. I didn't ask for a broadly-worded Google search. I asked for a single reference that gave us a seed for writing an article. You haven't yet done that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because I believe you are fully capable of finding these references in those sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        People are not capable of finding them because they do not exist, and you cannot find them because they do not exist. Your claim that they exist is completely baseless supposition. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I find the searches a little bit more promising if we type in the organization names, but then that's a different discussion, i.e. whether we cover all the organizations as a list or as a single article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOT#PLOT, no coverage by reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:NOTE. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one article Merge the four supporting articles into one Universe of Ace Combat article Thedarxide (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOTE. Eusebeus (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break: The Grand Merge and which variation do we go with

Now that notability and out of universe context has been established for the various aspects of Ace Combat, a proposal has been made to merge these sections into a new article. So, here are some ideas: 1) keep the articles as separate articles; 2) merge and redirect them all to Universe of Ace Combat, or 3) keep this article separate, but merge the militaries and nations articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Begging the question. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figure it's best to see how others think we should go about a merge rather than just doing it unilaterally. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, no. I'm referring to the same thing AMiB is. Notability 'across the various articles' has not been established yet we are operating on the presumption that it has. Protonk (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been to me and the others arguing to keep. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But arguments to keep do not notability make. I accept freely that the Ace combat series is notable. There is an article covering that subject already. We are making a different claim to say that, distinct from the Ace combat series of games, the fictional universe of ace combat is notable. That is not an impossible claim. Middle Earth is certainly notable. But in order to make that claim we need to show that there exist independent sources that cover the ace combat universe in significant detail--specifically not in passing in order to make claims about the Ace Combat series. In other words, a brief summary for a review should not be used to justify the existence of an article about the fictional universe. Forgive me if I am wrong but I don't see that rather extraordinary claim being made and supported by independent, reliable sources in these articles or these discussions. Hence the suggestion that we are operating from a non-established premise. Protonk (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge discussion is different from a keep discussion. We know that the various Ace Combat games have been previewed and reviewed with attention spent on specific aspects (whether it be weapons or pilots); thus in an article on the universe of Ace Combat or that say merges the characters and militaries with the nations, we can combine these sources to show collectively notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that notability and out of universe context has been established for the various aspects of Ace Combat

Where exactly did you do that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Across the various discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly did you do that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The various places (I am not going to re-link, repeat myself) in which I cited sources that caused at least one or more other editors to start getting the idea for a merge of the various articles under discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two people have said, "Where on Earth did you establish that?" Presumably, you haven't done a good job of establishing it; you've done such a bad job of establishing it that I also want to merge this article and you have failed to convince me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to merge the article, then what are your ideas/suggestions for how we go about making the merge? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slash this down heavily and upmerge this to the series article, like I said. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fourth option AMiB alluded to, which I find vastly preferable: Merge to the series and various game articles, because, from what I can tell, very few of the nations, organizations, characters, or militaries are present in more than one game. Or we can delete them all for pretty much the same reasons, and let the games' plot summaries take care of it. Nifboy (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should delete the non-notable cruft, seeing as this topic hasn't been demonstrated as notable. Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. Prove it, with references. Randomran (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JNN and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JNN. Don't just assert notability without appropriate sources. And I'll stop calling this cruft when you prove that it's notable. Randomran (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done that for the sake of the merge discussion; I am not going to keep repeating myself. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes three people who've asked you how it's notable and you've answered with "I did already, didn't you see?" No, you didn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, no one has convinced me that it is not notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's here to convince you; you're not even listening to requests to clarify your position. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified my position multiple times; the various aspects of Ace Combat (multiple appearances, because multiple games and a recognizable game series at that) are covered in published strategy guides as reliable primary sources and in reviews and previews as reliable secondary sources. I believe as do others in these discussions that we have enough content to use somehow whether it be outright keeping or some kind of merge rather than outright deleting and I am open to ideas as to how we can best go baout doing that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to some references that have seen fit to comment on any of the organizations/militaries/nations/whatever in this series. You've vaguely waved at "Well maybe we can use these!" but never actually proposed a single reference that isn't the games or a game guide that we could use to write an article. You want to glom all of these into one article that will just end up back at AFD with exactly the same problems, and that's not really a solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true, as I have posted links to articles that cover weapons or pilots, for example. My idea would be to merge all to the list of nations article and divide that into subsections that connect the militaries, organizations, and characters under their respective countries. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The former is a copy-paste from a press release, and is nothing but a bare list of objects appearing in one game. The latter is about the characters of one single game, fits neatly into the AC6 article but nowhere else, and says nothing else about the setting.

What's more, militaries and organizations in AC are heavily international or cross-national. Organizing them by country would amount to massive plot summary organized in an in-universe way, would involve a catch-all "international" being half of this bloated awful article you're proposing, and STILL wouldn't solve the fact that these articles are all plot summary and have fuck all for decent sources.

I am reading the things you find in Google searches; are you? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it is coverage in sources other than the games, which reveals that these places are interested in these aspects of the games. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT ISN'T COVERAGE OF THE SUBJECTS OF THESE ARTICLES. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Mathmo ^Talk 05:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems to be a significant part of a notable game series, and orthogonal to it so it fits better in its own article than the Ace Combat one. I think the article is a bit of a mess because it doesn't provide much context (i.e. there is no big picture, just detail) and I am not sure how this could be fixed. I would also support the merging of the articles into Universe of Ace Combat but I have big problems with the level of detail in the Militaries of Ace Combat article and the scope of the List of Ace Combat characters. Jll (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per User:A Man In Black --T-rex 22:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As if this page needed its discussion stimulated in the first place. Nifboy (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, I am not exactly sure how to go about this. This was created to deal with the organizations that are the backbone of the series, and I wouldn't know what to do with the info if this page could't be kept. Much of the info under Neucom and General Resource could probably be added to Ace Combat 3's article under plot, though I haven't got around to it. If someone else could handle it I would appreciate it (and I am asking this of an Ace Combat fan who is familiar with the story!). Other then that, I don't know what to do.Rogue Commander (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure game guide material with no assertion nor evidence of real-world notability. Reasons for deletion include "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" (Wikipedia is not a game guide) and "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" (no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). --Stormie (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The non-game guide material asserts and presents evidence of real-world notability and there really aren't any valid reasons for deletion given that it meets the notability guidelines and has sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of the subejct. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As usual, you are confusing the fact that you can find a topic by Googling with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --Stormie (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Wizardman 16:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of objects in Bionicle

AfDs for this article:

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such, is just a repetition of plot points from the various Bionicle articles plot sections. It has shown no improvement since January, is duplicative, massively trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a trivial list of trivial elements that require little coverage outside of the main article (if at all). TTN (talk)
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how you listed "notability" as a requirement? That's the issue, the article has established none. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Items that appear in this many publications are notable. The status of the article is not necessarily relevant as unquestionably it has Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea what is in those books, and if we have to guess, it is most likely more plot repetition. Verifiability needs to be confirmed, not guessed at, and nothing has been shown to verify this articles notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to guess one way or the other, but it is reasonable to believe that they can be used to improve the article accordingly. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not reasonable when the requirements for verifiability are that we here at AFD can actually see proof of real world notability. It is not reasonable to think that fan encyclopedias are filled with incisive creator commentary or something like that. And it's not how AFD works. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How AfD works is we need to be convinced that the article has no chance of ever being improved and must urgent be deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a list of notable game release of lego. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing this article with the List of Bionicle toys, which is a list of lego releases. And there are game articles, but this isn't that either. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this one is a spinout of the other - one is 27kb and the other 29kb - thus utility and size length suggest they are better as separate. And I do recall a discussion on lists that their notability is better off in the main article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "List of things" almost never has any referenceable factual claims worth merging anywhere, and this is a random grab bag of crap. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nothing notable here that cannot be covered in the parent article. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In such cases we merge and redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to merge unverifiable content, the only reasonable thing to do is delete. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is reason to redirect without deleting legitimate search terms that are not hoaxes or copy vios. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up a redirect is fine, merging content with no regard to its worth is quite another. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a redirect is okay, then that can be done without having an AfD. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Lists of things" is often the best compromise solution to dealing with objects in fictions and games. This sort of article is the sort that should be actively encouraged, though perhaps a better word than "objects" could be used. DGG (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of things (or minor characters or whatever) is generally a good way to organize things from notable fiction. This is that. Good breakout article per WP:BREAKOUT. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. Eusebeus (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:VAGUEWAVE. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is rather straight forward --T-rex 23:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources cited inline in the article are reliable. The "encyclopedia" listed in the reference section but not cited in the article is published by the same company that the rest of the Bionicle media is published by: Scholastic Corporation, an independent publisher. This offers a hint of possible sourcing (as we would presume it is not a work for hire, although it wouldn't take much for me to believe that it was). However, the list is basically a list of game items: something frowned upon per WP:NOT. I struggle to think of how this list could be construed as well sourced enough to overcome the spirit of WP:NOT. It certainly isn't getting there by just citing an "encyclopedia" commissioned by the game maker. there exists a GFDL compliant Bionicle Wiki which can accept this list and make better use of it than we can. Protonk (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would the Bionicle wiki necessarily be able to do better than we can? I would think we have more editors. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

they have a singular focus and no restrictions on gameguide and plot content (outside of copyvio content). they also don't demand our level of rigor for sources. I haven't removed the sources in this list because they don't make terribly contentious claims but they are all forum or blog posts (WTE of the "encyclopedia") Protonk (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Britannica can probably cover certain articles better than we can (after all how many articles do we have that are basically repeats of the 11th edition of Britannica?), but that doesn't preclude us from covering them as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to mean? No where in my statement did I make some sort of statement implying that coverage in a wiki was exclusive to coverage here. This article fails (borderline, admittedly) WP:NOT and all inline cited sources fail WP:RS. I am suggesting that we transfer it to a wiki which does not have policies prohibiting this kind of content. I personally don't care if it is transwikied or not but at least show me the respect of acknowledging I've made a statement. If you didn't want an answer to this question, then just say "no matter what you say, I'll just make some comment about Brittanica" at the end. If you did want an answer, then please respond with something germane. Perhaps: "This list serves some navigational purpose to wikipedia that it cannot serve in the bionicle wiki, that would be a loss to the community not compensated by retention of the information" or "an article's existence on another wiki should not imperil its status here, perhaps we could edit this article so that it no longer violates WP:NOT" or "we have wikipedia projects and dedicated editors here, superior dedication elsewhere is not a deletion argument." OR you could have just said "transwiking an article does not mean it should be deleted, we share content with several encyclopedias (including Britannica) this very moment" and not asked the question at all. Protonk (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply not convinced that the articles can't have additional inline citations. What you wrote at the end about wikiprojects and transwiking is basically what I was getting at. Regarding the question about the 11th edition, probably not of immediate relevance here, but I honestly am curious how many of our articles do indeed base themselves off of it. I'll see if I can find a category. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rough guess: What links to the 11th ed. Guide to sourcing the 11th ed. Bingo. Count the transcluded links to the {{1911}} template. Answer: a grawlixing lot. Protonk (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a hair under 13,000 pages in mainspace transclude the {{1911}} template. Protonk (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the above participants in this discussion has been determined as a likely ban evading sock account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - game/story guide. Has no notability out of universe, and is not really notable in universe either. WP:ITSCRUFT is not a reason to keep --T-rex 23:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor is it a reason to delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mango juice^talk 14:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharameshwar Maharaj

Self published references only. Notablity not established by article alone. Wikidās ॐ 19:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep in light of the deletion spree that Ism schism (talk · contribs) and Wikidas (talk · contribs) are engaged in against Nisargadatta articles, all of which are notable, referenced, and well-established. The article references a book Prior to Consciousness, which is not self-published. Why the multple falsehoods in this nomination? There is an agenda at work here. — goethean ॐ 13:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability provided by independent sources ... all sourcing seems to be from within the movement.Kww (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Why would you want to delete this page? I've been watching it for some time and it is for the most part accurate and verifiable biographically. I believe that four or five people have contributed to the page. If you delete it someone will only have to come along and re-input what has already been written. Considering that Siddharameshwar Maharaj was virtually unknown in the west only two years ago, unlike Nisargadatta Maharaj who has been well known since the 70's, it seems like a good foundation to build on with the goal of better edits in the future. Some of biographical references come from books printed in limited runs in India. Those are certain to be added in the future, in the meantime, this page gives basic information about someone of whom there is a rising interest and should be let to evolve. There is no movement involved, there is just a growing group of people who share similar interests in the lineage of Nisargadatta Maharaj. Instead of voicing that pages should be deleted for personal motives, how about making positive contributions to the pages that you think should be deleted instead of only negative comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadguru.us (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Reply Thank you for your first edit to wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing. Per this discussion, the subject is not notable and has no reliable sources. First, his notability needs to be established. Then, reliable sources need to be found to back up these claims. Thanks and happy editing. Ism schism (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google books Google Scholar — goethean ॐ 15:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Establishes notability, the book isn't a self published source. I'm also concerned about how the nominators have been nominating a large number of articles closely related to this for deletion, however that's not the issue here, it's notability, and I think the article establishes notability. Steve Crossin (contact) 15:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there is a doubt as to where notability is coming from. Is it a borrowed notability or has this subject be part of any study? Has any books or other encylopaedia articles written about him? Or was he mentioned in passing only. Wikidās ॐ 16:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is an uninvestigated doubt that exists only in Wikidas' mind. There are dozens and dozens of books containing the teachings and biographical references to both Nisargadatta Maharaj and Siddharameshwar Maharaj. Before tagging an article for delete, it would be prudent to do some simple investigation such as a google search.

Keep - There are sources available. Do some work and use the available sources to improved that article, rather than tag for deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - DO NOT DELETE***

This article is an important historical evidence for backing Nisargadatta who has changed number of lives. There are publications available on amazon that can be used for references. Contribution from Siddharamaeshwar maharaj are notable and his biography has to edited more than i thought should be more. Please leave this article in its place and avoid placing stamps of speedy deletion. I think this article is required.

≈ bebrahmin ≈ 17:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This discussion really draws into question the definition that one is using for notability. Siddharameshwar Maharaj was one of the great saints of the 20th Century and this is widely know in Maharashtra and Karnataka states in India. This is well documented in many texts that have been 'self-published' in India through small publishing houses. This is a very common method of printing books in India. This discussion also draws into question the standard of only using references from sources that are not self-published. Self publishing is the way of spreading information for the future, and the future is now. Credible sources should be the standard. Whether the source is self published or not is really irrelevent. The information presented on this page is fundamentally accurate. I have not posted the biographical information, but it is consistent with what I have been told by people who were involved with Siddharameshwar Maharaj and his descendents of the lineage. The Inchgiri branch of the Navnath Sampradaya has hundreds of thousands of descendent faithful devotees who meet once a year for a large festival to celebrate the dozens of spiritual master who have appeared in this lineage. Let the page stay. The documentation will continue to evolve as it has already done since it first appeared. One of the appealing things about Wikipedia is that anyone that is knowledgeable can come and edit and make corrections as required. This takes time. It seems that if would be a shame if the Wiki-Police stop the process of organic evolution of the pages by deleting them before they have had a chance to mature.

The definition of what makes a topic notable for one person apparantly isn't the same as of what it means to an interested group of people. It also seems to detract from the richness of content if any given page has only one contributor. I think that knowledgeable people like to contribute as much as possible, but are not likely to become full time Wikipedia editors. It seems clear that there is ample support being voiced for letting this page stay and evolve. Perhaps the benevolent Wikidas could contribute some of his editing skill towards getting this page up to snuff instead of lobbying to have it deleted. I think many people would be appreciative. Sadguru.us (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If these books were published through a small publishing house, unless it was a vanity press, it was probably not self-published. The word is frequently misused at Wikipedia. What would be helpful would be more details, like the titles, the publishing houses, date of publication, etc. These are frequently lacking, making it hard on people trying to save articles. The more details the better.John Z (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But the pages have to start somewhere. It takes time. If many pages are deleted in their infancy, they remain unavailable for people to work on them. Link provided by Goethean: Google books clearly shows notability. Sadguru.us (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet During this debate no independent third party reliable sources have been added to this article. As is, this article is still about a non notable and there are no reliable sources. It deserves a vote of Delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an independent third party named The Noble World Foundation who mentions both Nisargadatta and Siddharameshwar Maharaj in their book: http://www.nobleworld.org/great_personalities.htm

Sadguru.us (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source an article published in Life Positive Magazine in 2007 about Ranjit Maharaj stating how he was a brother devotee of Nisargadatta Maharaj, the well-known advaita teacher whose book I am That has become a modern spiritual classic. The article makes extensive references to Siddharameshwar Maharaj and Nisargadatta Maharaj. http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/Guru/Ranjit_Maharaj_the_Stateless_State42004.asp

Sadguru.us (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Ok already, it seems that there is concensus that this request to delete is groundless and that Siddharameshwar Maharaj has sufficient notability. Please remove the tagged for deletion notice. If you see some errors on the page, tag them for correction, from what I can see from the deletion policy, this is what should usually be done first before tagging a page for deletion. Let's move on, I'm sure that there are lots of other pages the editors could be submitting for deletion.

Sadguru.us (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly insist to Keep I have read book "Master of Self Realizaiton" by Siddharameshwar Maharaj. Without reading any one can say anthing about it. After reading I have found this book is specially for the spritual seekers who have reached various mile stones. Even after having reached to hegher levels how and where all places the mind gets stuck to are clearly mentioned in this book. The way outs are also guided so very well and that the seeker does not remain seeker after knowing the tricks to put mind at rest. Spritially advanced ones get to know - what is the true realization and how to understand it. The book is "completeness of spirituality" which is seldomly tought. Thanks. Shah 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.25.11 (talk) [reply]

Comment The subject is not a notable one, and equally important, this discussion has gone on for 5 days and no Wikipedia:Reliable sources have been added to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope the closing admin takes note of this, which shows sadguru.us adding a book published by Sadguru to the publication list.
Kww (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closing admin should also note that Shah does not exist and a fake signature was used by 203.197.25.11 on the comment headed: Strongly insist to Keep. Wikidās ॐ 12:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wah, wah, wah... Please stop whining like a couple of school-children tattletales. If you see something you don't like tag it for correction. How about get a life! If you can't do that at least be productive and helpful in correcting errors instead of just wasting everyone's time. Closing admin should ban posts from these 'editors' on a deleting spree.

Delete - after looking over the above discussion, sadgurus remarks and anon comments, it appears that no sources were produced to comply with WP:NOTABILITY, even the 'defense' was also a form of self-advertisement by a single purpose accounts or fake accounts. Wikidās ॐ 12:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Goethean. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikidās ॐ & Ism schism both users happen to be Indian pagans. These user are the one who are making request for deletion of articles. I am sure these users have developed a jealousy for the famous people outside their sect. If anyone sees the articles created by these users they all need AfDs. Either both the users have to be banned from editing wikipedia or they should adopt better way of projecting Hinduism. The only resistance i ever had editing wikipedia is from false Brahmins who consider themselves supreme all over others even Christians. Please take my comments in healthy spirit and edit wikipedia in proper manner.

Bebrahmin 14:20 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep per sources given in the article and above, by goethean, sadguru's, esp last two, jossi. And per Kurt, though he hasn't commented here. :-) Note that some of the works on Siddharameshwar Maharaj were written, edited or prefaced by his student Nisargadatta Maharaj, who was so famous, so widely quoted, that he is a major authority for notability. cf WP:CREATIVE. See Nisargadatta Maharaj's AfD for this - he was considered by a reliable source to be worthy of inclusion in a list of 20 of the most famous gurus (not just Hindu gurus) of the last century in the world. John Z (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT About Abuse of Afd Nomination process by Wikidas and Ism schism These two editors are obviously on a campaign to delete any hindu related articles that are not affiliated with the ISKON Vaishnava cult. This is evidenced here in these selections from the Non notable hindu ashrams and gurus section of WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. [[20]]:

Comment Last week, I listed articles for deletion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. In particular, I have looked for references for Bihariji Maharaj, Prabhu Jagatbandhu Sundar, Sindhi festivals and Swami Shankarananda Giri. To date, I have not found any. If anyone has any reliable sources or comments, please feel free to share or edit the articles. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC

Comment I listed more articles for deletion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. Please review these articles and their discussion as many articles have had no comments for a week. I appreciate any comments or feedback. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Note Four new Afds have been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Note Four new Afds have been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. They are; I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Navnath Sampradaya, Navnath, and Shri Madhavnath Maharaj. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Note Six new Afds have been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. These are; Siddharam, Parampoojya Shri Kalavati Aai, Siddharudh Swami, Swami Pranavananda, Ma Jaya, and David Godman. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Note Ten new Afds have been listed at, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion. The articles are; Living Essence Foundation, Madhukar (author), Nancy Freeman Patchen, Swami Sundaranand, Linda Johnsen, Luc Venet, William McKay Aitken, Yogi Marlon, Anthony Fernandes, and Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Note Six new Afds have been listed at, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. These articles are; Lisa M. Wolfe, Tirtha and Kshetra, Shivom Tirth, Swami Vishnu Tirtha, Yogiraj Bharat Bhushan and Yoga Shri Pith. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Note Six new Afds have been listed at, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. These articles are; Dhyanyogi Madhusudandas, Dileepji, Advance Party (religious movement), Oneness University, Oneness Blessing, and Kalki Bhagavan. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the shear number of Afds that these guys are generating(over 40 hindu related articles and counting in the past month) clearly show that there is some agenda at work here other than improving Wikipedia. They don't even make any positive comments, they only keep saying "delete-non notable." Admins should be alerted to the unscrupulous activities of these out of control editors and something should be done. Posted by Ram.samartha (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no justification to keep multiple comments on this page from the same three people that only say "delete - Non notable," and "non reliable resources." These comments have been made in the beginning and their views need not be expressed repeatedly only saying the same thing; "delete, non notable, non reliable resources." It seems that the nominations for deletion were not made in good faith, as no positive help with editing the pages has been attempted by any of these editors, who instead choose to waste their own time and the time of others who have better things to do than spending their days scouring Wikipedia looking to delete any articles that they don't agree with. With the limited time that I have, I have tried to clean up some of the editing and references, but the page is a work in progress. There is clear notability to Siddharameshwar Maharaj, and the page will surely, if slowly be brought up to snuff. But thanks have to be given in that the threat of deletion by characters of questionable motives have inspired interested parties to make this a better article. Too bad they couldn't have helped in a positive fashion, but helping out with negativity is still a help, nonetheless. Except for KWW who feels like his incessant unnecessary comments and deletions do not add anything to the merit of this discussion. Ram.samartha 00:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely notable, article just needs work. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polarbearing

More neologism shenanigans. Don't blame the polar bears for this one! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete this unreferenced neologism with no assertion of encyclopedic notability --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO and WP:NOT#DICT. No independent reliable sources for verification. -Verdatum (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism -- that's a new word for me, and it surely does fit here. :) RayAYang (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made Up Neologism. If deleted, I suggest a redirect to Ice swimming, as is a likely search term for the North American version of the activity known as "Polar Bear Plunges". Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Rehan

Hoax page. Referenced "friends" of the subject died 100+ years before subject was born. Repeated vandalism by small number of editors. No references, no notability. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Checking on google doesn't bring up much besides, ironically, this article. Ray Yang (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone Theatre in the Park

Non-notable theatrical endeavour. Problems with WP:RS and WP:V don't help its cause. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any notable information on it. Looks to be on community theatre level. If the park itself had an article, i'd say add a brief mention of it there, but that doesn't appear notable either. -Verdatum (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually live in the area and have had several friends participate in this group. However, it is indeed a community-level group that does not meet the notability requirements, at least not to the best of my knowledge. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per references supplied in this discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaupina

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not notable Sanskrit word. Wikidās ॐ 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to loincloth. It sounds like one meaning of kaupina is a specific type of loincloth. -Verdatum (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, part OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:#NOT.Kww (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. non-sartorial significance, asceticism, religion, culture etc. Touched in the article though not elaborated. Great scope for expansion. Kaupinapanchaka (scriptural verse) by Sankara alone can prove it.59.91.253.217 (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above ip probably belongs to the creator of this article, i.e User:Uzhuthiran. Now I also have clear idea about the sock master dude who behind it and his intension. --123.237.129.81 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-nn article, WP:OR. --123.237.129.81 (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into appropriate article on indian clothing, or loincloth. The article has references and it apparently has some religious meaning. Plenty (399) of refs at google books, 75 in limited or full view. Enough to argue for merging and redirecting at the very least.John Z (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ref and img here [21][22][23] or Merge with loincloth.Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per John Z and Redtigerxyz. — goethean ॐ 00:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black by Popular Demand

This is non-notable mixtape that was previously proded and deleted. Fails to satisfy notability guidelines. Reverend X (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete - ~~WP:CSD#G4 - Recreation of previously deleted material.~~ D.M.N. (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a previous AFD? Otherwise, this criterion does not apply. --Salvador Barley (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I noticed it'd been deleted before but didn't notice the process of which it'd had been deleted by. D.M.N. (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Speedy Delete is inappropriate because this was deleted by a PROD not by an AFD. Recreation counts as contesting the PROD. Guerilla Black seems to be a notable enough musician. Also note that his official album Guerilla City, which was released in the same time frame as this mixtape, has its own article and was a chart success. Within this genre, recording mixtapes is just as important as recording albums. Myrrideon (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Albums and the like are only notable if they have significant independent coverage. The article does not provide any. Ray Yang (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero references. Provide some credible and verifiable sources, or make a good faith effort to otherwise improve the content, and that might tip the scale in favor. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob DuBoff

Fails WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:V; an obvious WP:COI problem, too. A casual Google search brings up nothing: [24]. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails to satisfy WP:MUSIC. WilliamH (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. Article doesn't even begin to suggest notability. Ray Yang (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero references. Give other WP contributors some independent basis to evaluate the merit of this content, or else otherwise demonstrate a good faith effort to significantly improve the content to the benefit of WP and its readers. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halekulani Wine Tasting of 2000

Not notable. Wine tastings like this happen all the time. May be of interest to a trade journal, wine correspondent, or a local paper but hardly merits an entry in an encyclopaedia. Hotel offers "From wine events with masterful producers,…" as part of its regular attractions. HALEKULANI LIVING Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nom puts it pretty well, this appears to be the same sort of commercial event that happens all the time, verifiable, but not notable. -Verdatum (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero significant references. Give other WP contributors some independent basis to evaluate the merit of this content, and distinguish it from similar events that do not merit inclusion in WP. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Wine tastings like this one are almost unheard of. Virtually all wine tastings award multiple top honors and are essentially worthless promotions for producers. This is is one of the very few wine tastings in the entire world ever to be double blind, rank wines from high to low with only one wine in each ranking (producers hate this), and evaluate some of the world's top wines. This makes the event and the results highly significantand and worthy of inclusion.QuanYinLee (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)— QuanYinLee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: So far, the vast majority of the details you've enumerated here remain absent from the article itself. Sometimes all it takes to keep a worthy article from getting deleted is to add such details and include inline citations or footnotes to substantiate the details. If you'd like help on how to do this, please feel free to ask. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mango juice^talk 14:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dendemann

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dendemann

This artist fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like the article content substantially mirrors the de.wikipedia entry, which seems to have more sources. Can someone who reads German examine those references and comment on their independence and reliability? Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Zero references, which is not good, however appears to satisfy WP:MUSIC and there is sufficient evidence to suggest deficiencies can be addressed. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence are you referring to? This article currently fails WP:BLP and basic verifiability policy. I'm not sure how WP:MUSIC can be met when those overriding policies are currently not. JBsupreme (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC & WP:BLP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test with an added emphasis on WP:BLP and core verifiability policy. RFerreira (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because he had 2 charting singles and 1 charting album in Germany (and propably two albums soon, he is going to release a live album on friday). Being listed on de:laut.de is considered at least a hint at some established notability in the German Wikipedia (see de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien#Pop- und Rockmusik). There also is a biography on all music guide. The other sources in the German article are just some interviews and album reviews, nothing I would call independent and reliable. His charts positions can be confirmed here. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn, with no other arguments for deletion raised. Renaming is an editorial decision not for AFD to decide. Davewild (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T. K. Sukumaran

T. K. Sukumaran played in 2 allegedly first class matches [25] and [26], according to the obscure Cricket Archive. There is no record of him at all in Cricinfo, which has a comprehensive record of all first class games and all first class players who have ever played. According to Cricket Archive, he later played in 5 other matches for Federated Malay States, an earlier name for Malaysia [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. Given that Malaysia has never played first class cricket, I would suggest that those 5 were not first class matches. It states on Cricket Archive that the first 2 matches were first class, but I do not believe that they were. If they were, they would be listed on CricInfo. India did not play test cricket until 1932 (see: India_national_cricket_team) and were not invited into the Imperial Cricket Council until 1926; hence any matches involving them prior to 1926 did not count as first class. Therefore, the 2 matches that Sukumaran played in 1924 and 1925 could not possibly be first class matches. Therefore, he fails WP:ATHLETE, because he did not play at a high enough level. Furthermore, even if it were argued that for some reason those matches should count as first class even though they actually were not, the fact is that he only played in 2 matches. 2 matches is nowhere near enough to be considered to be notable. If we had an article on every player in the world that had ever played first class cricket, we would be looking at over a million articles. He clearly did not do anything significant outside of that, as there is no record of any details about him at all - no story, no details of who he was, nothing. Indeed, the only place that mentions him, Cricket Archive, does not even give his date or place of birth, a photo of him or his full name. We cannot even verify if this person even really existed. How can we possibly justify writing an article on someone who we cannot verify even exists, let alone anything about him? Myrrideon (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - Just because this person is not mentioned on cricinfo does not mean that he is not a first class cricketer. Cricket archive is as good of a source if not better than cricinfo as a reliable source for players. Therefore I believe that the games he played were first class if cricket archive says they are.

Also there are not nearly a million players that have played first class cricket. I think off the top of my head that crciket archive have a database of just over 100,000 players in which all first class cricketers are included. Also some of this number will be non notable lancashire league players for example. I hope if others agree with me that the nominator will withdraw this deletion.02blythed (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I trust CricketArchive (which is not obscure to cricket fans) to have an accurate list of what was a first-class cricket match, so this player would pass WP:ATHLETE, having played at the highest level of the game, and being reported doing so by an authoritative source. I must admit, I'm not sure why anyone would choose to add this particular player to Wikipedia ahead of many others, but that's not our concern here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CricketArchive is hardly obscure, it is infact in my opinion better than Cricinfo for multiple statistical & historical facts. The design is a little outdated and offputting, but it is run by two statisticians including Philip Bailey (cricket writer), who, as you can see from his article, is a highly reputable source. CA is definitely reliable and thus the facts in the article are verifiable. "Just 2 matches" isn't a reason for deletion either: first-class cricket is the highest level of domestic cricket, and thus even one appearance is enough to pass the criterion of WP:ATHLETE. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The games, as stated above, are NOT first class matches, as defined by the International Cricket Council. Therefore, regardless of how reliable Cricket Archive normally is, they clearly got it wrong this time. Furthermore, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to suggest that these were important matches, regardless of whether they were first class or not. If they were important, why is it that Cricket Archive is the ONLY place that has any mention of them or of him? Sorry, but someone who does not exist doesn't deserve an article. I think that people should read the links and what I said before spamming in keep because of an allegation, based on falsely trusting Cricket Archive, that he played 2 obscure first class matches. Those matches were not officially regarded as first class, not by the ICC. Myrrideon (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can I first ask how you come to the emphatic conclusion that the ICC does not recognise the Madras Presidency matches as first-class? I would point out that, officially, there were no first-class matches outside England before 1947 when the ICC finally decided to make a ruling (in England, the ruling was made by MCC in 1895). Hence you could argue that, strictly speaking, Bradman did not become a first-class player until a couple of years before he retired and Grace had been active for thirty seasons before he became first-class!

To deal sensibly with such a nonsense, cricket historians must decide which matches before the official rulings were first-class and so it becomes a matter of opinion. But, given that the cricket historians are in general agreement and they are mostly notable authorities, their published views are verifiable and invariably credible.

This brings me to CricketArchive which is, in effect, another cricket historian like John Arlott or whoever. The site is by no means obscure in the cricket world. It has a great reputation and is arguably the most reliable source on the internet for information about top-class cricket. It is widely quoted by the cricket project on WP. I agree with AllynJ above that CA is superior to CricInfo.

It may well be that you can provide another source which states that the Madras Presidency matches were not first-class. Fine, if you can do that. But for our purposes it doesn't matter because we already have one verifiable and reputable source which says the games are first-class and the article writer is entitled to use that to justify his article. As Stephen says, any player who is deemed by CricketArchive (and similarly reputable sources) to have taken part in a major cricket match (the scope of which is not limited to first-class) meets the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. I would also refer you to WP:CRIN which is the WP:CRIC view of notability.

There is no doubt whatsoever that T. K. Sukumaran is a notable subject. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have Cricket Archive says that the games were first class. On the contrary, you have Wisden, Cricinfo and International Cricket Council says that they were not (and are still not regarded as such today). You have no other references outside of Cricket Archive that suggest that these matches were regarded as first class, or are today regarded as first class. Furthermore, you have the fact that this guy does not have a name, place of birth, date of birth, or any information about him, other than that he allegedly played 2 matches. Do we really need to have mentions of anonymous people who we know nothing about in an encyclopaedia? Its nonsensical to include him. All of the arguments above are false. Myrrideon (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that Cricinfo does not consider it as a first class match ? Tintin 06:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here is a google search on the name [32]. 220 hits. Not a single one has anything to do with cricket (aside from the ones from Cricket Archive (already proven to be false)) and from Wikipedia here (also proven false). Where are the reliable references? Myrrideon (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your attitude towards CricketArchive is out of order. It is a reputable site that is widely quoted by many cricket authorities including WP:CRIC. You have not answered Tintin's question above re CricInfo nor mine about the ICC. Where does it say that the Madras Presidency matches were not first-class?

According to this article in CricInfo, the matches were first-class. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing the Nayudu argument a little further, CK's brother CL Nayudu played one of Sukumaran's matches. http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Players/40/40117/First-Class_Matches.html is the list of CL's three fc matches according to Cricketarchive. You'll have to explain how Cricinfo arrived at the conclusion that CL Nayudu played in three fc matches and ended up with exactly the same fc stats, if Cricinfo does not consider the Presidency match as first class matches. Tintin 07:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in any case here is the clincher. And the other one too. CricInfo has these very matches in its archive after all, contrary to all the rubbish above about how CricInfo does not recognise them. I don't know why I didn't check earlier. This is all a complete waste of time caused by someone making a WP:POINT. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is someone who doesn't warrant a biography. Myrrideon (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what POINT you think that I am trying to make. I am making the point that you can't have a biography about someone with no accurate info on them! Isn't that a legitimate thing to suggest??? FFS Myrrideon (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Withdraw, and change name to his actual name - per [33]. His name is TK Sukumana not TK Sukumaran. That would probably explain why there is no info on him. Of course, that name might not be right either. I strongly suggest at least finding out his real name if we are insisting on having an article on him. I do not think that someone with no name or info warrants an article, but hey. Perhaps if/when someone finds out who he really is/was then we can write the article properly. Myrrideon (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a WP:STUB and is perfectly legitimate as it stands. If and when someone finds more information, perhaps in one of the many excellent books on Indian cricket, the stub can be expanded. As for his name, the scorecards quoted by both CA and CI call him Sukumaran. It is almost certainly the CI profile that has misspelt his name. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be a typo in Cricinfo. "Sukumaran" means handsome in several Indian languages and is a common, though old-fashioned, name in Kerala but not that common (as far as I know) in Tamil Nadu. There is no such name "Sukumana" in South India. Tintin 10:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all including their fair use logos, may be restored for transwiki on request. The "keep" opinion of Him and a dog was discounted for making no sense, and that of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles for being boilerplate. Sandstein 18:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Eaters

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter, one of the numerous chaos space marine legions that can used by players as part of game playing. All sources are the numerous codexes (instruction manuals) and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions. As an individual item or as a collection with other legions, none of these items have any real world notability, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should deleted as has been done in the past. The generic subject of Chaos Space Marines is covered in the article of the same name - so if AFD'd, all articles should redirect there. Allemandtando (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the rationale given above:

Keep all per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody had bought that vague misrepresentation of policy on any of the other AFDs you have cut and paste it into, so why are you expecting it to be useful here? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no coherent or compelling reason provided to delete this material. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies, not essays, are very compelling. And if you cannot assert with proof that these articles have real world verifiable notability, it is unconscionable to vote "keep" as it shows disrespect for Wikipedia's rules. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I cited the Five pillars. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Yet you present no proof of any kind of verifiable references or real world notability, which should compel any honest person to conclude that the article is not notable, and therefore not fit for inclusion on wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The clear interest among readers and editors suggests that the article is notable to people in the real world. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)But the five pillars page is a summary of policies or guidelines, not a policy or guideline itself. And it is also holistic; I could just as easily cite the five pillars as reason to delete the article in question. Which particular policy were you hoping to appeal to and houw should that policy compel us to ignore WP:N. Furthermore, how do we know what you mean in each article if your citation of the five pillars does not vary from article to article? Presumably if the deletion nomination is "[not] coherent or compelling", then shouldn't your response to it explain why you feel that way? Do you feel that the nomination is so self-evidently incoherent that explanation would be unnecessary? Protonk (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the widespread disputes over notability on its talk page, it's hard not to WP:Ignore All Rules until those issues are ironed out. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have any guideline at all? why bother? If we are just going to ignore it while it is being discussed, why bother discussing it? And how does ignoring all rules about WPN make the nomination incoherent or not compelling, enough so that it only merits a copy/paste response? Protonk (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations made in succession with copy/paste rationales are likely to get copy/paste responses. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ever think of just being the bigger man in an issue like this? Or that maybe a closing admin would weigh a thoughtful, specific claim more than a copy/paste response? Or that you've already been asked to stop making mass copy/paste responses and promised to not do so in the future? Protonk (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ever think about focusing on the actual article under discussion? I know there's reader interest and I believe per Wikipedia:Editors matter that our editors and readers who come here for these articles are worth considering, i.e. if we humor them, then they like I and many others oftentimes will branch of to work on "more important" by however we define that articles. Plus, in another sense I find such articles as this as demonstrative of comprehensive coverage of a particular subject and therefore better fulfillment of our goal of being a compendium of human knowledge. Do I think the article is perfect or something? Of course not, but I am not convinced that any problems it has will never be fixed. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that as a non answer to both questions. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as above, irregardless of whether it was adhered to previously it is right and we can only hope it works this time. Deleting here serves no purpose, if all of these were to have to be on a single article it would be horirbly cluttered.--Him and a dog 21:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Transwikify per Verdatum - Let's see if I understand this. Warhammer 40,000 is a game put out by Games Workshop, a game that I for one have never heard of, and I am pretty up to date with games. Then Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) are some kind of force within this game. Chaos Space Marines are a kind of space marine. World Eaters are a type of Chaos Space Marines. All of this within the fictional universe of a game that I for one have never heard of. Given that Wikipedia has recently deleted individual Naruto characters, out of an immensely more popular series, I think that having something which is a sub section of a sub section of a sub section of an obscure game should be deleted. Besides which, most of those articles use a lot of original research, are written in a fictional tone and are just plain not encyclopaedic. Perhaps they need to get a Warhammer 40,000 wiki and put them there. Myrrideon (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably never heard of it because it started in england about 30-40 years ago and the popularity peaked in the early 1990's. It is a tabletop miniature game where a rather large proportion of effort went into assembling and painting an army. the interesting thing is, warhammer has returned to popularitiy as a computer game (Dawn of War and Warhammer:Online), allowing the possibility for the real source of inspiration for starcraft and warcraft to be lampooned as a slavish recreation of starcraft and warcraft. Full disclosure, I REALLY liked 40K when I was in high school. Protonk (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, the Naruto articles were actually used as a good example of fiction coverage. I feel way happier now (disclaimer: I worked on four featured lists, six good articles, one featured topic in the Naruto articles) =) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki All as appropriate to the warhammer wikia. Not even the slightest establishment of real world signifigance. If it's redundant, then redirect to Chaos Space Marines. -Verdatum (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there a warhammer wiki? If so, I'd say transwikify all. If not, encourage them to make one. Myrrideon (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this day and age, there is a wiki for everything: http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/ -Verdatum (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically, these are thin veneers of setting over rulesets that amount to "Buy the latest guide and get a buff for (your team) for painting them a certain color!" Ugh at GW's marketing, and ugh at the amount of work that cleaning up this mess is going to take. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It has no place here unless it can be written about with third party reliable sources. TTN (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete all. No independent third party references are present to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - There is already a Warhammer 40,000 wiki which covers this type of material, and these articles assert zero notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WP:GNG (and proposed guidelines WP:TOYS and WP:FICT) state that notability cannot be inherited from the parent aqrticle. They also state the reliable, secondary sources must cover the topic for it to be notable. This will get very repetitive but it has to be said for each article. What also has to be said is that the fiction "sources" are not independent from games workshop (do an ISBN check on the books from "nottingham"). Each also fails WP:WAF badly, but that is an editorial issue. Protonk (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no assertion of notability whatsoever from independent sources in any of these articles. If possible, transwiki the material, as it would look nice in a fanwiki. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and Delete All per everyone else. If it has no notability, then to hell with it. The wikias will gladly take 'em all in. ZeroGiga (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:PERNOM and WP:JNN. Also, Britannica has articles on the same stuff we have too, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't also coiver it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major aspects or figures or settings in major games are suitable as subarticles. I assume this game is important enough Conceivably merge to appropriate combination articles without loss of content. Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content. This is the sort of thing Wikipedia does best, and we should extend this kind of detailed coverage to more conventional topics. DGG (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are not major in any sense, and there's no sourced content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as insufficiently notable. These aspects of the game have not yet garnered non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, published sources. — Satori Son 19:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All echoing the above: no notability, no possibility for effective sourcing to demonstrate encyclopedic value. Eusebeus (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Magalhães Herrmann

No independent source proves her notability. She only appears on blogs, youtube and social networking services like Orkut. Tosqueira (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 17:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is a misunderstanding, because her work is relevant and she has important publishments in partnership with Congresso Brasileiro de Poesia, the most important poetry event in Brazilian, and other publishments that we can list soon.

Thank in advance for your attention. --Poetrybrazil (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be great if this is true, and I hope the artist all the sucess in the world. My suggestion in order to help you out in case you want to try to save this article is to find another article on a signifigant artist already written about previously here on wikipedia (Whom christiana has been credited for a signifigant work), then edit Christina's article to include information on her major influence on that artist (this is called Building the web). It wont be a guarantee, but if it can be Verified it will make a great argument against deletion. Another thing that may help is to clean up the references so that they include major publications instead of youtube links. Hope that helps %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (edited this to clarify %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 22:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

- Comment: We thank you SYKKO, all your suggestions are right and already made. There is a provisory page ( click here ) where you also can see many extra reliable references with photos and comments and links. On pt.wiki votation it´s has been discussed in details and many serious wiki contributors have voted to keep the page, including 2 one which changed their votes. --Poetrybrazil (talk) 08:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - has an article in Portugese Wiki: [34]. Just because this is the English wiki and we don't understand Portugese well enough to understand the artist doesn't mean we can't have an article on them. Wikipedia is not just for English speaking people. Myrrideon (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I understand portuguese and she isn't notable. All her sources are from blogs, youtube, Orkut and the like. Her article is also under AfD on pt-wiki: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Christina Magalhães Herrmann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosqueira (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No results on Yahoo Shopping (in brazilian portuguese)[35]. Also, fails WP:RS. Tosqueira (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No News on Google News: [36] and Folha de São Paulo (one of the most important Brazilian newspapers): [37]. Tosqueira (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Blogs and Youtube do not establish notability. Hús ö nd 22:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is not notable in Portuguese Wikipedia, and then, it is not notable in English Wikipedia. I understand Portuguese, and all resources are unreliable blogs, geocities and orkut. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:RS Artene50 (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: it has been also discussed on portuguese site. There are many new references (with official websites) where it´s very easy to see that this brazilian artist is recognized not only a poet, as well as organizator of diverses and relevant cultural projects. I hope the friends of wikipedia can see it soon. Many thanks. Poetrybrazil (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her notability for literarure and cultural projects in Brazil appears on many reliable sources, please read new comments, links and the page >>>>> Some publishments , References and Photos - Chris Herrmann - Thanks - Poetrybrazil (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please, before all, clean-up this page. There is many unreliable sources and excessive (spam) links. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Zerokitsune, it´s clean now --Poetrybrazil (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No own work in print, National Library of Brazil collections: 0 hit, WP:CREATIVE/WP:V fails (too): some (unconfirmed) participations in antologies. No literary award, no reflection/avaliation by established literary critic: IMHO a semi-professional 40-hits-writer. --Gunnex (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The comments above are unfair and wants to reforce a first prejudiced vote ignoring facts about relevant cultural engagements, because on the portuguese page the voting to keeping is stronger at the moment and based on reliable sources and many specialized literary references. Two Wikipedists, for example, have their votes changed to keep the page. --Poetrybrazil (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in pt-wiki is often bot-like. They click on "Keep" or "Delete" without presenting fact(s) and/or reason(s). I did. Here too. So dont come with this "unfair" an dont mix the different procedures constructing it as an argument. --Gunnex (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t mix anything, because facts are richely presented, in this case. But the most important in moment, all wikipedists that vote till now to keep the biography on the brazilian page are extrem serious contributors of wikipedia. --Poetrybrazil (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider new references and photos and votation on pt.wiki
Many thanks.
- --Poetrybrazil (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per a suggestion that poetrybrazil made to me I figured I would help anyone out who would like to see how this discussion is going on the Portugese wikipedia : this is the google translation %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 14:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As Gunnex said "Voting in pt-wiki is often bot-like. They click on "Keep" or "Delete" without presenting fact(s) and/or reason(s) " --João Carvalho (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On pt-wiki, people voted to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Botelho: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Bottelho. There, they don't care about WP:V, WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIO. Tosqueira (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just closed the discussion on pt-wiki and the article was kept. The result was 9x3. Unfortunately, the AfD on wt-wiki are based on the very number of votes and voters seldom justify them. Lechatjaune (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article must be deleted because it consists of original research (scarcely) based on primary sources. While nobody writes about this poet, she should not have an article on Wikipedia. Lechatjaune (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article should be kept because important and reliable sources were more and more presented. It could be easier proved on pt.wiki and, for this reason, the decision to keep the article was more suitable. --Poetrybrazil (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 23:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, recreation of an article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Welbeck (2nd nomination) and where the reasons for deletion have not been addressed.. Davewild (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Welbeck (footballer)

Recreation of Danny Welbeck article. (AfD)

He has never played at a professional level and therefore fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE as friendly matches and youth internationals do not confer notability. Ɔrassic ^(talk) 16:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this might also fall under WP:CSD#G4. Ɔrassic ^(talk) 16:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Reliable sources have been found and the subject establishes notability. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evanston public library

Contested prod for vanispamcruft article created by a user named after the library and an IP address registered to the library.[38] While article is formatted to show sources, all listed sources except one are owned by the library and the exception does not mention the library.[39] Google search finds public notices of groups meeting at library branches, but no obvious sources describing the library. Delete as per Wikipedia:Verifiability unless sufficient independent sources to allow creation of a neutral article are provided. --Allen3 ^talk 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editor who created the article used the name of the library as his username, but that does not prove he works there. I have edited articles on Thomas Edison and his work, but I am not that dead inventor. I have edited articles about Consolidated Edison, but I am not and do not work for that power company. Edison (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I would hope that an article on a very old and still very useful library could be saved through finding appropriate verification, this may be the single worst written article on this site; it is little more than a website for the library, and I in no way blame the nominator for prodding this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the subject of a Wikipedia article has multiple reliable and independent sources, then it satisfies the notability requirements and cannot be "vanispamcruft." If the article needs editing, that is a reason for editing, and in no way a justification for deletion. This library has a great many references from outside its own town's newspapers, with indepth coverage of factors which set it apart from the average library system of a town of 80,000, not including routine "Smith to speak at library" articles. Any material which is not independently and reliably sourced can be removed and the article can be stubbed, if necessary, but with independent reliable sources establishing notability, the library website can be used to add some richness and detail to the article. Its early history is covered in detail in "Chicago: Its history and builders, 1912, pages 352-354 [40]. Its history through 2008 is covered in "Evanston" (2008)(a town history) [41]. A quick search shows that most of the material in the article can be sourced to Chicago or national newspapers or the above works. If someone checked with the actual library, they probably have many additional clippings and articles related to the lilrary and its history. These are just items easily found online. From Google News search, there are many articles in reliable independent sources with coverage of this library (considering both the institution and the buildings). The New York Times, 1902 [42] Discussed censorship by this library, which is in Illinois, showing that early on it had a national reputation, for better or worse. The Christian Science Monitor (1937) [43] discussed the unusual outdoor reading room on the roof of the library. The Daily Herald (1968) [44] (subscription: Newspaperarchive.com)discussed how the Evanston Libray's large collection would become the hub of the North Suburban Library System, to loan books and other materials to smaller libraries in surrounding communities. The Chicago Sun Times (1986) [45] discussed the high usage of the limited space in the library of that era and the need for a larger one. The Chicago Sun Times (1991) [46] discussed plans to replace the then 32 year old building with a new one which would double the size. The Philadelphia Inquirer (1991) discussed the architectural competition for the design of the library, which had 377 competititors from around the country [47]. The Chicago Suntimes (1994) [48] had an article about the new $23million main building, says it is "one of the biggest public libraries in suburban Chicago." University wire, 1998 [49] says it is one of the oldest in Illinois. Library Journal (2008) [50] had an article about the apparently unique Falcon Cam at the library which covers the yearly returning families of peregrine falcons which nest on top of a column at the library. This was also covered by CBS TV in Chicago [51]. Edison (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clearly G11 IMHO, plus WP:COI of original creator. So nominated. ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC). Abbreviation now linked. – ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep: I have reworked some of the history stuff and removed some of the unencyclopedic content. NB some of the links to the library website generate 404 errors when I try to access them. – ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - External links now working for me. – ukexpat (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not refer to Wikipedia abbreviations without linking to them, for the assistance of editors less familiar with how to find byzantine guidelines. The "COI of original creator" in no way removes the citations I provided above. Did you take a look at them? Additionally, the library was a winner [52] in the 2008 Library Interior Design Competition of the Library Administration and Management Association (LAMA) and the International Interior Design Association (IIDA) for its teen room called "the loft." Edison (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in any event all the opening hours stuff is unencyclopedic and should be deleted. Any objection if I do that? – ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" so please do what you can to improve the article. I went through and removed the text that said "Please call such and such number for more information" but left the descriptions of programs. The article clearly needs revision such as more discussion of the holdings.Edison (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G11 refers to the speedy deletion criterion for articles that are "Blatant advertising". Given the dry nature of the article, I'm not sure it applies. --Salvador Barley (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Edison Myrrideon (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are there. Notability is established. --Salvador Barley (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kudos to Edison and ukexpat! LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Edison. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we have reached consensus per WP:SNOW. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Wood

An extremely minor figure in Kentucky history. Does not pass WP:BIO. The article's references don't seem to bolster the argument for notability (quite the opposite, actually). Ecoleetage (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historical figures like this often times don't have a large number of online sources available. The article does claim notability, and I did brush it up some for. Granted, it needs more--but I think that some time for development of the article using offline sources would be prudent. Right now, it's less than four hours old.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A claim of notability is not synonymous with actual notability. As of this writing, the claim is not confirmed. But if notability can be confirmed, as per WP:RS, then the article can be saved. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question When you say "not confirmed" do you mean besides the three items sourced in the article, or are you discounting those sources for some reason?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the WP:NOTE basic criterion of the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject (referenced in the article) and the additional criterion The person has received a notable award or honor by being honored with recognition on a Kentucky State historical marker (referenced in the article). --Elliskev 19:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , per Elliskev. --Bedford ^Pray 20:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see substantial coverage, just a brief mention. All he did is name a small town. ~~Perhaps merge with an~~ Redirect to the article on the town, which already talks about him as the "namer." Edison (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction He named the small town, negotiated railway service, built the depot, and otherwise was instrumental in bringing progress to the area.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inexperienced in AfD discussions, but isn't an argument for a redirect essentially the same as an argument to keep the article, as redirect/merge discussions take place on the article talk? I'm not asking to be a smartass. I'm asking because I think a merge/redirect would be fine, but wouldn't that discussion be moot if the article was deleted? --Elliskev 21:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI, the origionator, will incorporate future information

about Alvin Wood into the Lyndon, Kentucky offering. Thank you for your many comments and suggestions. Appreciate....and am learning as this is my first offering. If we keep it that is good...if not I will rework it into the Lyndon, Kentucky History section...which I also submitted.User Talk: Stone8henge —Preceding comment was added at 21:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the independant sources listed in the article. Edward321 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources exist and are referenced in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all, and block Potocki indefinitely. DS (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Sołtanowicz

As noted some time ago on WikiProject Poland, the series of articles on the Sołtanowicz family by Potocki (talk · contribs) is likely a hoax. Existence of those individuals cannot be verified (despite them being claimed as notable - poet, writer, etc.), with only refs being a suspicious genealogy page for the family (and even that is not true for most of those). It appears some of the article that user has created have already been deleted (ex. Mateusz Sołtanowicz), other - prodded (ex. Prince Dmitriy Zakhanenko, suspected as another hoax). So far the only responce by the creator has been to remove AfD notices and blank talk page comments. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to be verifiable. Edison (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no go - a bridge too far. The author needs to provide better or rather any independent sources, if these exist, to establish notability of this fellow Jan Soltaniewicz, the fourth in the row of the dynasty. Advise also to delete the other Soltaniwicz' articles, with the only exception of the Bolesław Sołtanowicz article for now, but even in that case the English Wikipedia needs something to verify the provided data as per WP:V. Side note to its creator: that article would never be challenged as per WP:AGF if it was left alone, but now after this Soltaniewicz dynasty overkill, even that one looks suspicious. greg park avenue (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and even our Bolesław is suspicious. His book is unknown. You'd think that somebody who translated a Bible would be better known. And oh, references cited - don't exist: [53], [54]. No, this is a hoax - above average ones, ones that would make good characters in alternate history pedia or something like this, but certainly not the right additions to a our project.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Prince Zakharenko" is most certainly a hoax and should follow suit. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (hoax). No entries in the Polski Słownik Biograficzny. Picus viridis (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Legarston

After doing google searches[55][56][57] for all three variants of the name mentioned in the article, I could not find any evidence that this person existed or is notable. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I wouldn't imagine there to be a lot of Google hits for a pirate who was dead long before computers even existed, but I'm still not seeing much in the way of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly a hoax. Nothing to prove that he even exists, and the vague date is especially suspicious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For real historical figures of even marginal notability there would usually be at least a few mentions in some books or history fan sites and google searches usually fish them out. In this case there is nothing at all to indicate that the article is not a hoax. Moreover, "circa 16-18th century" sounds rather suspicious to me. This is a relatively recent period in historical terms (not like, say, 2000 B.C.) where dating by century is not appropriate and where for real historical figures, even the outlaws, some more precise information would be available. Nsk92 (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to be verifiable. People in the "16th to 18th century" wrote about many pirates. If no reliable sourcese can be found to even pin down a century of his piracy the article should walk the plank. Harrr! Edison (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 16th to 18th century? This just smells like a hoax. Despite a claim of French nationality, the French version of the name is a google null. Ray Yang (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax based on the (ahem) vague dating and lack of info and sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this person were a real pirate, there would at least be a date indicating some point at which he was alive, not just some 300-year range as we have now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 23:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. InformUP

Fails WP:WEB and WP:RS. An attempt to identify independent references from the established tech media turned up nothing. The article's references to BugTracker.NET and Secunia seems like a vain attempt to establish a level of class by association. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note: the article has been rewritten since it was nominated for AfD, so the references to BugTracker.NET and Secunia are not valid because they were removed from the text. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as meeting neither WP:WEB nor WP:RS. — Lincolnite (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:RS and probably WP:WEB. --Bonadea (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the AfD template was removed from the article on Jul 12. I just replaced it, but it is possible that some people who would have commented on the AfD have not had the opportunity to do so because they haven't seen the discussion. --Bonadea (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scene fashion

Obvious POV problems, self-admitted essay, no third party sources, no reliable sources. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I put a bunch of improvement tags on it weeks ago but no effort has been made to provide reliable third party sources to back notability. It reads and feels like a self interested exercise by someone with a COI. Mfield (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this article violates WP:SYNTHESIS. Going through the sources, a lot of them really did not deal directly with the subject. It undoubtedly, at the very least, it needs a great deal of rewriting. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a cleanup. As a result there is little to no content. It is no different from repeated deletions of Scenester and Scene queen and numerous other variations of the term, none of which (including this incarnation) successfully were able to establish as a notable neologism. At least the subculture article cited may be a start. -Verdatum (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like someone's personal opinion of Scene rather than a factual recording of it. - Contortion
Delete - the post cleanup makes it very clear. Thank you Verdatum. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As User:Verdatum noted above, this appears to be a re-sprout of Scene kids and the like. (An admin mentioned to me that Scene kids was shorter and even worse, though. The current article at least looks mildly like a real entry at first glance.) Even after some cleanup, this article is essay-like opinion. No notable examples of people who match this topic, and the article is opinionated enough that listing any person as an example is likely to violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In short, non-neutral, unencyclopedic, and no clear way to become encyclopedic. --Closeapple (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted A7 - non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strellson

Declined speedy (no idea why, looks pretty clear cut to me). Non-notable clothing brand/company. Fails WP:CORP ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 anyway. I see no assertation of notability whatsoever, and can't see why speedy was declined. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - phew, I thought I was missing something! – ukexpat (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemic Dream

All sources appear to be self-references, no assertion of notability that would meet WP:CORP. A quick search of google news sources didn't result in any articles with significant coverage. Shell ^babelfish 14:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are two independent sources: one is a broken link, and the other appears to be a game site which does not mention the topic of this article. Fails WP:RS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - press releases abound, but reliable sources are in short supply. -- Whpq (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) RMHED (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Ryzhy

Doesn't appear to be notable, with not many third-party reliable sources for the subject. A Google search brings up only 481 hits. D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article has some references and 3rd party links. WP:NOTBIGENOUGH and WP:GOOGLEHITS AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added another reference which, along with the one already in the article, demonstrates notability. The bare number of Google hits for any subject doesn't mean anything, especially when the search is not done in the subject's native alphabet. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the remainder of the article can become sourced/removed, I will withdraw this AFD, at the moment it looks like original research. D.M.N. (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the facts in the article can be sourced to the references cited. I agree that the language could do with toning down a bit, but that's a reason for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding refs. I'll withdraw this one. D.M.N. (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. No consensus as to merge or keep, either. Mango juice^talk 14:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond (rapper) (2nd nomination)

AfDs for this article:

Not notable independent of Crime Mob, failing WP:MUSIC. (see talk) Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Crime Mob. Not independently notable per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TPH. The circumstances of her departure from the group have been heavily blogged about, but she doesn't meet WP:MUSIC on her own, and I can't find her being substanially mentioned in reliable sources sufficiently to get her to meet the general notability guideline. The best one out there is the allhiphop.com reference that is currently in the article, and its just an interview. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - if all she had ever done was to be a member of the band, then a merge is appropriate. But she has actually released a mixtape, her departure from the band has been notable, and she is know recognised as an independent artist. Whilst she is yet to do anything yet as an independent artist, she has had enough publicity to just barely warrant an article. Reassess later to see if the attention she is getting turns into sales. Myrrideon (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - She is non-notable because, she has "yet to do anything yet as an independent artist". Per guidelines, "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band." - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TPH, for reasons already given. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has had a solo career --T-rex 23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per reliable references, particularly Phlegm Rooster's.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile oil

AfDs for this article:

This page has been deleted before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocodile oil) and was once again recreated by a SPA spammer User:rhysc whose ~~account has recently been closed~~ userpage has been deleted for "blatant advertising" almost-instinct 12:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's worth noting that the previous deletion was two years ago; looking at the first debate from 2006, the nomination noted that there were "only about 250 hits on Google"; two years later, googling the phrase "crocodile oil" now returns 2,400 hits. Thus, there is room for this stub to become an article that can be sourced. The fact that a "witch" created the stub this time makes no difference under the circumstances. Mandsford (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to reply here? All these hits on Google are solely thanks to the spamming activities of the creators and vendors of Repcillin, a topical balm that contains crocodile oil. See the talk page for Crocodile oil to see extracts from an online interview with the creators of Repcillin. There are no other references for Crocodile oil. Everywhere you go you see outlandish claims being made for it; it has no scientific backing at all almost-instinct 13:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you start to refine the Google search to exclude blogs, promotional videos, official company sites, sites which that want you to pay by PayPal etc, you can get it down to 465 or lower. I'm not saying it is definitely non-notable. But its Google hits are somewhat deceptive.

That said, I have found one independent source dealing with the topic in greater depth: Can croc oil take bite out of skin ailments?. --Salvador Barley (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to sound hectoring, but this article just repeats the unsubstantiated claims made by the creator of Repcillin almost-instinct 13:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does include a sceptical response from a Johannesburg dermatologist. But I'm not suggesting it be used to source scientific statements – it seems more suitable for info about its marketing if anything. And it's only one source; if no others turn up, I'm inclined towards deletion. --Salvador Barley (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only "sources" are scientifically unfounded and are largely the responsibility of the article's author. What a croc (someone had to say it). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that it's a croc is the very reason that there should be an article. Once a remedy of dubious effectiveness becomes notable enough that people believe it works, the function of a Wikipedia article is to provide criticism of the subject as part of information. I'd put it in the same category as the skeptical articles we have about detoxification foot pads, emu oil, copper healing bracelets, laetrile and other such things. Mandsford (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but what sources would we cite? If I created an unsourced stub which said "Crocodile oil is an alleged ingredient in one or two products sold by BS-merchants who claim that it has the power to cure diseases that medical science currently has no answer to" surely I would expect it to be speedy-deleted immediately? almost-instinct 15:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree in principle with Mandsford, with the problem being that articles like this also become magnets for "supporters" to use as a WP:COATRACK. That alone is not a reason to delete the article, but it is something to be cautious about.

Delete - Not having a verifiable, third party source is reason to delete. I could live if it were merged with snake oil, but without sources, it really has no place here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I see the problem that comes with trying to find sources-- surprisingly, I'm having trouble finding anything specific, although it's apparently "in vogue" right now with people who look for non-pharmaceutical "natural" remedies that can't be regulated by the FDA. I can't find where an independent evaluation has been made of the claims, nor a Consumer Reports type commentary about the product. I ask the question, why would someone go to Wikipedia to look up "crocodile oil" in the first place, rather than a health supplement website? Because on Wikipedia, they would be more likely to see the negative reviews and not just the "it-worked-for-me" claims. That's why I think an article should exist, but again, I see the dilemma that you've referred to. Mandsford (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - well known product in everyday use in Australia. The subject of a well known nationwide advertising campaign and is in heavy use. Myrrideon (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile oil is not a product, it is an alleged ingredient in a product whose vendors make endless unsubstaniated claims (curing babies of eczema, curing psoriasis, healing acid burns etc). If the product you are referring to is such a success then presumably some Australian media outlet has published something about its miracle ingredient? One this page could cite? almost-instinct 23:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep We are not debating whether the stuff works. We are not the Science Police. If reliable and independent sources say it works, that its a hoax, or simply that lots of people buy it, that would be sufficient to satisfy notability. The source cited above, Can croc oil take bite out of skin ailments? , might qualify as a reliable source (I'm not familiar with the source myself) and it in turn says that Reuters earlier had coverage of it, which (if the Reuters article could be found) would be 2 reliable and independent sources, sort of the bare bones of WP:N. If reliable sources print stories which repeat propaganda from the promoters of a hoax, that is a shame and makes one reconsider how reliable they really are, but we are not the judges of truth here, just the judges of whether independent and reliable sources exist for writing an article. If an article is kept, it should not be allowed to be a promotion POV advertisement. See HeadOn for an example of a balanced article about a homeopathic remedy. Edison (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Edison, we are not the Science police, and per a little research. [58] are a couple of news articles mentioning it, but better are the 73 google book hits. (34 limited view, 23 full view) including this, which indicates this kind of snake oil goes back to Ctesias, and others with more extensive coverage.John Z (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We are not the science police but at the moment there is no science. The only title cited is a 19th German chemist's work on how fats can be used, eg in paints. The page, with this citation was creator by the importer—not even the creator—of a moisturiser containing crocodile oil. WP:Verifiability says: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Soon after the article was created someone added a "COI" tag, which this importer immediately removed, which indicates bad faith on his part and makes me doubt that this book contains anything to do with crocodile oil's medicinal properties. In any case if you look through the talk page you'll see that the creator of the moisturiser—a man who had zero previous experience in medicine at all—said in one interview "Although I have not commissioned any empirical tests, I’m not making any claims ... it’s a topical balm that you can put on anything". The online sources, such as the one above, just repeat Repcillin's Creation myths. I agree—if as an ingredient in moistures it passes notability requirements—that there should be an entry on crocodile oil, but until we have a "reliable, published source", ie one that isn't just a credulous journalist repeating unsubstantiated claims, this article, by WP rules, shouldn't exist. almost-instinct 07:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Books results linked above show clear notability. This needs expansion, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one Wikipedian were to go to one of these books, read what it had to say, cite it and base the article around that citation, yes I would agree. But since the page was created by an editor who has been shown to have been acting in bad faith—and am I the only person to have noted that the one book alleged referenced is the first result in the Google Books list?—all we have at the moment is the scar tissue of deleted rubbish. By having this page, useless and meaningless, we do WP a disservice; whether or not someone who actually knows about this subject subsequently wants to do WP the service of creating a meaningful article is irrelevant to our task in hand almost-instinct 09:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS May I apologise for how pompous I just sounded!? :-) almost-instinct 10:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you may not. We need more polite, pompous wikipedians. ;). I'd do it if I had the time. The refs are a bit less than meets the eye, but still sufficient. They would do a good job of science policing by themselves, by the way. One learns that it was thought to be highly efficacious for the lucky owner to burn in a lamp, to quiet the damnable incessant croaking of frogs, and allow one to sleep (they'd be scared by the smell.) It would also make your he-goat invincible in head-butting contests, if applied directly to the forehead. Kind of hard to seriously make modern quack claims for it next to recommendations like that.John Z (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable. It's irrelevant whether or not it's snake oil; all that matters is whether it has received sufficient attention, and I think it has. Everyking (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very stubby, but no need to delete it --T-rex 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No scientific, verifiable references. No evidence of significant attention.Phasmatisnox (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has two Google News hits, 12 Google scholar hits, one of which says "In addition, neonates are occasionally given crocodile oil to relieve perceived stomach pain. However, this ..." which looks like a clear case of analysis by a secondary source. Another lists it as a "historical cosmetic". Finally there are 73 Google Books hits. Many of these describe the oil, its uses, or otherwise discuss it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Tick

Delete. NN, fails WP:Band. Endless Dan 12:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if expanded. I've found some decent reliable third-party sources. The AMG source is pretty convincing; between it and the other sources he might meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this is deleted, this page probably ought to redirect to Ixodes scapularis, the fancy name for the deer tick. Deer tick is currently a disambiguation page, between the vermin and this band; it too should redirect to the page for the tick if this gets deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSIC. Several reliable sources including all that TPH mentioned plus a Lenghty review from Pitchfork Media (who are a notable reviewer of mostly alternative rock and indie rock music) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does appear to meet notability. I also agree that if the article is kept, the article should be renamed Deer Tick (band), and "Deer Tick" should be directed to the insect. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a single review of an album by an Internet based inde-rock review organisation is not sufficient for WP:BAND. Nor is a mention in allmusic. WP:BAND gives you all sorts of ways to declare a band notable, I don't see any of them met by the article, nor by a cursory google search. I'll happily change my position if new evidence surfaces. -Verdatum (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK then...How about A write-up in SPIN Magazine? Spin and Pitchfork are both notable and the artist meets WP:MUSIC criterion #1. You only saw my refs, not the five that TPH posted above? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to dab, if the band is kept, it should be Deer Tick (band) 70.51.8.100 (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article establishes notability as per WP:MUSIC#C1 for the above refs mentioned by TPH & Dr Strange. Also agree with the rename proposal by LonelyBeacon. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filters and Observers in rails

The article creator is using Wikipedia to publish an essay they wrote on their blog. It's not clear that this is anything other than original research; moreover, Wikipedia is not a manual for help with coding. Salvador Barley (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely prescriptive OR, belongs on the blog it was copied from. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For reasons stated. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a how-to -- Whpq (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like the others AlwaysOnion (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This wasn't a speedy? LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the criteria would you suggest? --Salvador Barley (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G1? G2? I was really asking a question ..... not making a smart alleck comment. I might have better said "This wasn't speedible?" It was not meant as an affront to your listing it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speakinig out of turn here, but I don't think Salvador Barley was being affronted or interpreting your comment as being a smart alleck. He's just asking which criteria were your proposing it be speedied under since it's not obvious which criterion would apply. To my mind, it fits none of the speedy criteria. It doesn't fit into G1 as it not patent nonsense or gibberish. It lacks context, but it isn't gibberish or nonsense. It doesn't fit into G2 as it is quite clear (to me at least) that this is meant to be an article and not some test. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to LonlelyBeacon) What he said. It does seem like the kind of thing that ought to go quickly, but once the copyvio issue was put to rest, I couldn't see what would easily apply. --Salvador Barley (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks for the education on that. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete like a talk page, not notable, not well done.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Islaammaged126 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-Lotus

Non-notable company. There are millions of 200 person companies creating a specific, unremarkable, niche product, and this is one of them. Step hen 10:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - I haven't been able to find any reliable sources, news or otherwise, on this company. Can anyone produce third party info? I'd say 95% of the hits are related to a restaurant or nothing relative. Without such coverage, the company pretty clearly fails WP:CORP. I will state, for the record, that I disagree with the notion that just because a company has only 200 employees and is small shouldn't be a reason for delete. There just aren't reliable sources giving info or demonstrating notability. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't appear to be any third-party sources on the subject, therefore the company does not meet notability. If sources to pop up that prove notability, I will be happy to reconsider. D.M.N. (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. pure and utter spam. Gorgonzola (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it would be useful if someone bought a product from them and then wanted to know a bit about it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it? Myrrideon (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not an advertisment. D.M.N. (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nominator said. No sources independent of the company provided. RayAYang (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reliable sources about the subject have been found and so the subject is notable. This person leads an organization and resources have been found for that. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Pollard

Unsourced resume. Fails WP:BIO. Contested prod. BradV 19:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The article has plenty of sourses in the "Publications" and "External links" sections. By the way, that's a pretty impressive list of publications, all the more because the variety of publishing companies pretty much rules out any WP:DUE issues. Both Routledge and Holt, Rinehart & Winston, at least, are well-known companies. The problem is that the sources have not been cited in-text yet, but that's where WP:ATD comes in handy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's pretty big in the educational community. No doubt the article needs to be punched up, but I have no doubt the sources are there. Joining with Cosmic Latte, not only are the publications by multiple publishers, but they are over a non-trivial amount of time. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the external links are not reliable sources: one is the website of his own TLRP programme and the second is a website selling two of his books. I am pretty sure that his own publications are not reliable sources either, because they are primary sources, not secondary. – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd say that there's probably a good likelihood of his having been cited in secondary sources, though, and would oppose any sort of deletion unless a thorough search for these sources (in which I'd be happy to participate when I get a moment) comes up empty. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Notability has been established; this article doesn't belong on AfD. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - very notable professor. Note that he is the DIRECTOR of a department at the Institute of Education at London, not just a regular old teacher. That alone warrants an article. Also has lots of publications. Just because they aren't visible on the web doesn't mean that they aren't usable. Myrrideon (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is the director of a large research institute and is an author of highly cited academic works. GoogleScholar gives impressive citation results[59], with top hits at 176, 129, 126. Passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above. Along with Miriam David below, there's also Mary James (educator), of the same institute, which I just de-prodded.John Z (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is is just me, or are the drifts getting too deep for sled dogs? LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MUSSH! - We'll get to Nome on July 15 or we'll die trying! (An inclusionist prayer?: All AfD's lead to Nome.)John Z (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think I understand why this was listed on AFD. [60] plus next 3 changes were made by User:Andrew pollard who may well be the person who the article is about. Just the same, I think he is a notable enough professor. Myrrideon (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused why people are voting keep on this article. The article is completely unsourced, and some of you appear to be basing your opinion on the contents of the article. This article needs references badly in order meet the WP:V and WP:BLP policies. BradV 14:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a reference. The Teaching and Learning Research Project, part of the Institute of Education. The reference is this [61]. Follow that link and at the very top it says "Andrew Pollard, Director", with a photo of him. Therefore, I hasten to say that he really is the director. As I said, regardless of whether those works really are his works, the fact that he really is the director of such an institution is easily enough to warrant an article on him. Furthermore, at least some of the works are listed on that site under "Publications" [62]. They also have press releases which could potentially be incorporated into the article [63]. At the same time, I understand how you feel. I nominated a woefully inadequate article on T. K. Sukumaran for deletion and I got bullied over it too. Some people here are cruel. Myrrideon (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of those sources are his own website. That certainly does not meet the verifiability criteria. And I don't think anyone here is cruel, I just want people to do some research before commenting. I did, and that's why I nominated it. BradV 14:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not his own website - it's the website of an organization which he heads, the Teaching and Learning Research Programme, run by the government essentially. So it's not self-published.John Z (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep as notable, but none the less, when someone who is head of an institute or the like publishes something in a publication from that very place or one of its units, it is not really independent. A certain amount of judgement does have to be exerted as to reliability, and whether it indicates notability. Honest people are careful about this, but not quite 100% of people in the world are exactly honest all of the time. But it is well established at Wikipedia that such non-independent but official sources are enough for the routine facts of a career. And if t he routine facts show notability, that's enough. DGG (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per the discussion's unanimous consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Kingdoms

Non-notable role playing game. Blowdart | ^talk 13:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Kingdoms was the first full pulp game released for the d20 system and thus represents an adaption of that system from just fantasy to other genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothersin (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be harsh; but so? The d20 games listed on wikipedia are numerous (and I've flagged a bunch). Is being a new genre notable? It's doubtful. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the games are many, but by being the first it shows just how flexible the system (which is arguable the most flexible RPG system in the history of table-top games) can be. If "notable" follows your definition, you might as well wipe out all RPG's after D&D as they're numerous and most don't even carve out new genres. Brothersin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 00:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've found a second review (to go with the one that was already in the article). Citations are, of course, desireable, but this is likely enough to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't have a terribly strong argument. WP:IKNOWIT and it's relatively popular among the gaming community. I'm sure multiple reviews can be found within gaming community publications. -Verdatum (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I found and added a link to a RPGnet review, so it is known and written about. Ray Yang (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a published gaming book by a notable publisher, and in none of his mass RPG AfDs has nom tendered any explanation of why these games are not notable, either in the nominations or anywhere else, other than to say that he "has concerns." That there are indeed numerous articles on RPG products on Wikipedia is readily apparent, but the degree to which that's a policy violation is less so. RGTraynor 23:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews establish notability, and I personally know of it as being fairly widely discussed in the community. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is now referenced and subject clearly passes WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Drummond (footballer)

Article is a single sentence and gives no details to notability, other than the mention he was a part of a "famous" group referred to as the 'invincibles' of Preston North End. There are no references for any material, and the article does not even mention a birth date or whether the subject is still alive. More information should have been gathered before the article was created. --SeaFox (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - have expanded and referenced the article, subject meets WP:ATHLETE requirements by a million billion miles...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - 139 league appearances and a league title. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes in episodes

Not notable. This is a list of appearances by each alien in the cartoon show Ben 10: Alien Force. There is already a growing episode list at List of Ben 10: Alien Force episodes that contains sufficient info on the episodes, and a list of the aliens themselves at List of Omnitrix aliens. Ged UK (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I had never heard of the word "cruft" before participating in Wikipedia, but... this is "cruft". Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Vhoscythe^chatter-sign 14:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jll (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No context.--Boffob (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete horribly named, nothing useful, merge anything worth saving and vape it. JuJube (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If I actually didn't RTFA before voting, I would've had clue what this was for (My initial thoughts were it had something to do with the show Heroes), but this is definitely Fancruft. Unlikely search term for information (as it says nothing about the source material - the children's cartoon Ben 10: Alien Force). And it is redundant two other articles. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. May as well close it. We already have all of this information in another article. Worst case leave this as a redirect to that article. If they are going to wipe articles on individual Naruto characters, then I think that the less well known Ben 10 has to get less attention too. Myrrideon (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is a twee-bit waxxy. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No context, and possibly the worst naming of any article -- I thought this might have been an article related to the TV series Heroes. I see no viability here; any information here can be incorporated into an article listing the episodes of this series. 23skidoo (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Merlin

Non-notable astronomer. Fails WP:BIO. Tagged as non-notable for over a year, and I can't find any sources that meet WP:V. Contested prod. BradV 19:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - [64] Merlin is cited at the NASA Deep Impact project; [65] he has won some kind of award in France. I didn't have time to do more, but I am leaning toward a keep. Be wary of G-hits, there appears to be a biochemist with the same name. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the info LonelyBeacon has found. Edward321 (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 12:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep discover of multiple asteroids, work has been cited. DGG (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kryptonite Nixon

Declined speedy (though I still don't see importance or significance asserted). Non-notable band per WP:BAND. References do not support notability. ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any notability asserted, either. If anything, the discussion in the article talk page ("briefly marketed") suggests this should be an easy delete. Ray Yang (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no assertion of notability, and none really to be found on internet search. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the speedy was declined, I still feel it meets that criteria for deletion. RFerreira (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), The presence of {{fact}} tags is not a reason for deletion. Ruslik (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Do Kai

Not notable,1 ref, to nothing, no sourced assertion of notability Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While in a current state of too much unsourced information, it appears that while this martial art may be minimal in popularity, searches on google and google news certainly establish that it exists, people are active in it, and there is a level of reliable sourced information documenting it. Sources like this are a place to start, many more "pay-per-view" newspaper sources I found on a simple google news search. Also, I see "Zen Do Kai is a simplified street fighting art with clubs located across the whole of Australia and New Zealand..." as an assertion of notability, although it would need a source. Article currently has promotional issues, a large amount of info should likely be removed and sourced work should be started from a more stub-like state. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a sufficiently widespread art. Article needs work. JJL (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too many citation needed tags Sceptre ^(talk) 15:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the two external links are to the same site. I am not convinced that this article will find the needed verifiabilty. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked? There seems to be enough non trivial coverage when doing google news searches. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would appear that this is a well-known Australian martial art. Too many citations needed tags: one tag per sentence would solve the problem. The article needs work and references. jmcw (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per no consensus/article cleanup during AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Levitron

This article is being used to assert a trademark rather than describe the subject. Following discussion, the majority of notable material in this article was moved to Spin stabilized magnetic levitation. The original article was made a redirect to the new page, because the individual instance of the toy in question is not notable. This has been continually reverted by editors who wish to use the article to discuss Creative Gifts' trademark on a particular instance of the toy, even thought the information therein is covered adequately at other articles. per WP:COATRACK, we shouldn't use articles on subjects to discuss issues which are tangential to the subject themselves. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - A note: since nomination, both Whones (talk · contribs) and 118.68.190.28 (talk · contribs) (both SPAs) have removed the nomination template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like notable product, and the trademark litigation is a notable historical event. LotLE×talk 07:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of that advertisement quickly! Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as it is, this is advertising. Perhaps if someone started over. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, "Perhaps if someone started over" is pretty much WP:ATD, but how exactly does "Trademark litigation history" qualify as an ad anyway? Looks to me like at least some of the article is just fine in its current form--all the more reason for WP:ATD. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Trademark litigation history" section is unique to the brand. Besides, plenty of brands have uncontested WP articles, even when the generic products also have their own articles. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trademark issue is well covered in Trademark, but the history of this article shows that it is non neutral over a long, long period. Notably, the current article fails to cover prior patents even though the various academic reliable sources say that that's the original/same invention... so there's a business/ego reason that the makers do not want it being there- it looks very much like they keep removing it (that's the only explanation I have). But the device itself is covered adequately in spin stabilized magnetic levitation.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to spin stabilized magnetic levitation, largely per D.M.N. and thumperward (below) in tandem, but incorporate Levitron's "Trademark litigation history" section into spin stabilized magnetic levitation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a shame it was nominated at AfD first, instead of CSD. It clearly violates WP:CSD#G11. It might be that this company could be notable - you'd really have to dig through those hits to properly assert notability - but this article doesn't assert it in the least. Frank | talk 12:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: If it's potentially notable in a manner that could be expressed through revision, then it's not WP:AFD and most definitely not WP:CSD, but rather WP:ATD. Still not sure how "trademark litigation history" is going to promote the product, which would have been the aim of an advertisement. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment - Note that the company name is the same as the product. This article is about the product, and is purely advertising. The links I provided are about the company which might be notable. I was calling attention to the fact that a quick search for notability might pull something up, but it's the company, in a different context. Frank | talk 13:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't a company name. This is just a trademark of Fascinations that they use for a few of their products.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me honest. The search I did came up with "New Orleans-area companies Textron Marine & Land and Levitron LLC are teaming up to design eco-friendly oil and gas exploration vehicles known as hoverbarges and hovercrafts." and I made an incorrect logical leap. Seems it is a different company, and, interestingly, the referenced Levitron LLC is the oil & gas part of that duo and not the levitation part. Frank | talk 23:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean-up so it doesn't sound like an advertisement, and so that it has a neutral point of view. D.M.N. (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That article already exists. It is called spin stabilized magnetic levitation. This article is continually recreated by a series of SPAs, one of which has previously stated that it is an official representative of the trademark owner. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, and modified my position to Redirect (above) accordingly. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to spin stabilized magnetic levitation and lock (otherwise Delete and salt). The trademark legal issues are well covered elsewhere, and there's nothing else of importance that isn't covered elsewhere. The article is far from neutral, and the history shows that this isn't going to change; this article isn't fixable.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does not improvement and needs clean-up to show a neutral point of view, but I think the article should be allowed to develop. LakeBoater (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created almost 4 years ago, and has seen significant attention, if it's not neutral now, it certainly won't ever be.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam: non-spammy article already exists and a redirect achieves nothing ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per Ukexpat. Gorgonzola (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for anybody to assert their trademark. Ugh. Ray Yang (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect this spam. Antelan ^talk 22:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the trademark is notable. The court case might be, and the device might be, but if this article is actually about the trademark itself, it should go.gnfnrf (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 12:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable as per sources. It's got a lot of ghits, from which I'm in process of finding some reliable sources. The Albuquerque business journal article reports they sold 750,000 units in 1994-1999, and it's still going strong, so it's a fairly significant toy line. The article just needs some TLC...I'm in process of de-spamming it. It looks like someone wrote it not as an advertisement but as a way of asserting their intellectual property. For Wikipedia, the point is that it's a popular line of toys, not that they own a trademark or patents or the details of how they won a trademark suit. Those are worth a brief mention though. Wikidemo (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I said all that in the summary. The point is that the toyline discussion was moved to a generic title (spin stabilized magnetic levitation) to avoid the trademark talk, so at the moment the Levitron article is just a POV fork with extra trademark discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing it. This is clearly notable stuff. Levitron is a notable product - plenty of sources. If necessary we could downplay discussion of the device to talk about the product: the phenomenon is physics. The product is the top, the world globe, the spinning space shuttle, the company history, the litigation, etc. The generic article may be a content fork, but maybe not. It's not unusual to have an article about a thing, and another article about a brand it's marketed under. See, for example, Paracetamol and Tylenol, or Hypotrochoid and Spirograph. The more I get into this, the more fascinating it becomes - it looks like one of the Net's early trademark wars / attack litigation pages. Obviously, someone has been squatting on the article to try to turn it into an advocacy piece for the company that markets the product against the obvious fact that it's only a minor improvement on an earlier-patented device. There are some serious WP:COI, WP:OWN and WP:SOCK issues here. I see from your comments on the talk page that you nominated the article in frustration after attempts to manage the situation failed. I appreciate the effort to keep Wikipedia orderly but the best remedy here is to deal with those problems head-on and insist on our ability to treat things encyclopedically, not just to delete a page because it's contentious. Your nomination, and the discussion to date, have pretty much missed the point. Wikidemo (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten (changed from delete, above). Frank | talk 20:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frank. The rewrite seems to be heading in the right direction. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've had rewrites before though. And it seems unlikely that the improvement will remain, given the long history of the article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So basically, past versions were bad; therefore future versions will be bad, even though the present version is good? Not sure I follow the reasoning here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're supposed to be voting on the likely final state of the article. The fact that the article has been majorly non neutral over almost 4 years is a bit of a clue that not enough neutral contributors are around for it to overcome the commercial pressures to make it read like an advertisement. In other words, the final state is likely to be poor, even if right *now* it may be OK.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We're supposed to be voting on whether the article meets WP:DP, and I don't see anything in there about some "final state" (whatever that's supposed to mean). We're supposed to be considering whether the article can be improved, and by your own admission there is already an "improvement," albeit one that might not likely "remain." I'm not sure how the latter speculation has anything to do with the article's history, as new editors and ideas can come along all the time. And if there's a problem with future edits, then we revert and/or discuss. That's how Wikipedia works, aye? Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whatever former issues it may have had appear to have been cleaned up --T-rex 23:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Gunz

Contested prod (without any reason). Fails WP:MUSIC and has been failing verifiability policy since early 2007 as well. No evidence of non-trivial coverage from multiple third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only "notability" that this artist has comes from appearances on remixes (that weren't mainstream versions, by the way) of a few records. --Winger84 (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe notable someday, but not now. LotLE×talk 07:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without references, I would have to say delete it. I'm not great with policy, but I looked over arguments for keeping or deleting and it is really tough without a source to want to keep it. Craig Montgomery (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he's been associated with Lil Wayne,who is very notable. BigTVFan (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Please show evidence of non-trivial publications about this person, not his associates. Thank you, JBsupreme (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:MUSIC ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 12:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Signed to Universal/Motown and then to Island/Def Jam? That makes him notable, in my opinion. Radioinfoguy (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That claim is not sourced, just like the rest of the entire article. Verifiability policy is non-negotiable when dealing with WP:BLP articles. JBsupreme (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cory Gunz is listed, as part of the Universal Motown roster. Click Here That was easy to find... Just considering that he is/was signed to UMRG, Rihanna used him on a remix, and that he supposedly has his own release coming out, is more than good for me. I can't say if what appears in the article is all true, perhaps it needs cleaned, or adopted by an experienced editor. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about, taking an article, nurturing it, and making it work? I believe too many people jump on the delete bandwagon, without really looking into the subject, or thinking much about it. Just because the article is poorly sourced and perhaps not the most well written, doesn't mean it should be deleted. He appears to be a promising up and coming performer. The article should, at least, be kept as a stub and expanded, as his career continues. Radioinfoguy (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the claims made within the article are verifiable, thus fails WP:V and related policies. RFerreira (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 by Lradrama, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superluminal graviton

Unsourced original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is original research and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 07:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Almost speedy under G1, but I think it's more WP:HOAX than nonsense per se. LotLE×talk 07:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When someone signs the article they wrote, can it just be deleted for being from one person's perspective? Craig Montgomery (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Salt, Tie it to lead and kick it off the deck - WP:OR, WP:HOAX, WP:ARRRGGGGHH! LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. We already have a Superluminal article. As an aside, the seven Google hits (apart from the WP article, and including at least one blog, which references Superluminal anyway!) for "superluminal graviton" do not exactly look promising. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure, weapons grade bolognium. Also OR, too. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planets of Warhammer 40,000

The mother of them all, this is a massive totally un notable list of planets from the Warhammer 40,000 series which repeats plot information from other Warhammer articles in an in-universe way. It is therefore duplicative, massively trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary sources can be used to verify material but not to establish notability. None of the material in this article has any real-world notability. It is already covered in appropriate detail by dedicated external 40k wikis which don't follow WP policy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LotLE×talk 07:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. All that could have been said about this article has been said. --Vhoscythe^chatter-sign 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent (see other 40k afds for explanation) sources establish the notability of the subject. the parent article does not impute notability for daughter articles. And LeGrand, it drips condescension when you tell people "WP:PERNOM" and give a copy/paste response to this AfD. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Transwikify as they apparently have their own Warmhammer 40,000 wiki - Similarly to my reason for the other 40k AFD, really this is too obscure to be of any use to the average person reading it. It is fictional and it is not written in an encyclopaedic way. However, the article is well written, so I would suggest that these guys make a 40k wiki and move it there. It would be appropriate there. Myrrideon (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris Cunningham and Protonk. Edison (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is a non-notable topic given unnecessary details that belong on another wiki. Without any coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't belong here. TTN (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:JNN. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you even read the links you spam? I clearly stated that the lack of coverage in reliable sources is the reason the article should be deleted. TTN (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you even look for coverage in reliable sources? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since that book is NOT about warhammer 40k, why are you adding it to articles/ and claiming it's a reliable source? Please don't waste our time with silly games like this. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Seriously, after having this one silly argument, along with the rest of them, completely shattered in dozens of AfDs recently, why do you even bother? That book obviously does not provide the necessary content to satisfy policies and guidelines (i.e. not your personal opinion on how this site should be managed). You're entitled to your own opinions, but constantly harassing people in AfDs that are backed by policies and guidelines is not helping you at all. Make your comment and leave it at that. If you see a bad comment like "Delete - This is crap" then you can do your thing. Otherwise, just focus on changing the policies and guidelines. TTN (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because I have yet to see you make a valid argument for deletion in any AfD, which is why most of your argument are completely shattered in dozens of AfDs. This article covers a topic that satisfies any reasonable policies and guidelines and we get by now that your personal opinion of this site is incredibly exclusive, but most editors reject that limited vision. That book shows that aspects of Warhammer are indeed encyclopedic. In fact, encyclopedic enough to be covered a published book, which not all fictional universe can claim. But not just in that book, but also in these which can be use to make a good article. Should this article be improved further? Absolutely. Should it be deleted right now as it never can be improved further. Of course not. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I really don't recall having any of my arguments ever shattered except for the period when I was an inclusionist out of ignorance towards the true purpose of this site. I have certainly "lost" in them before, but that's more because of numbers than anything. Again, we're not talking about how you think this site should be managed. We are talking about current guidelines and policies, not your imaginary versions of them. If your statements were correct, fiction would not constantly be progressing towards an encyclopedic standard. I just realized that I'm being stupid by trying to argue with you, so that'll be it from me. TTN (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it's frustrating if you are not even willing to consider helping in the effort to improve the articles under discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I've read the first source you mention there. Congrats! It's not about this game at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no non-trivial coverage by reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to demonstrate any inkling of notability. Primary sources don't cut it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Planets in WH40K are regularly "discovered" when GW wants to introduce a new battleground or race or nationality or whatever, and nuked just as quickly when it suits GW. They're snippets of plot most WH40K players don't know about and aren't interested in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 12:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe this content, to the extent that it is verifiable (and some good sources have been provided), is necessary to comprehensive coverage of Warhammer, which is itself a notable subject. Everyking (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read every single article we have on warhammer 40k - why do you feel this isn't covered in sufficient detail in any of the many many parent articles. Which bits in particular are necessary to provide this comprehensive coverage? please be specific. You talk about the sources being "good" - which one do you think is the best in that article? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major settings in major games are suitable as subarticles. I assume this game is important enough, but I do not have any knowledge on that point. This is the appropriate sort of combination article, to avoid articles on every planet--that might qualify as inappriate detail, but not this. . Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content. DGG (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't even appear to have personally established whether the game is notable enough (per your "assumption"), which basically means you're defending it for the sake of disrupting AfDs which use WP:FICTION as the primary rationale. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's being disruptive, per se. We may say that his interpretation of what is and is not notable is not in-line with guidelines or even proposed guidelines, but he's free to hold and apply it. On a larger note, I think that notability guidelines for fictional subjects deserve some serious attention--the GNG currently gives us basically an instruction to depopulate fictional categories. I'm not wholly opposed to pushing for a change to WP:N to reflect the sourcing opportunities. but I don't think (even though WP:N is a guideline) it is proper to run the encyclopedia as though a major descriptive guideline was non-existent. Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Tanthalas39. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Square Hockey

Violation of WP:MADEUP, I believe. Sole author responded to prod by saying "A new and upcoming game, I want to share it with the world", without providing any evidence of notability. RayAYang (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry i didnt realize this. I shall delete it...any basic tutorial to delition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imike101 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. No consensus to delete as the subject is notable. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raees ul ahrar

Poorly written, but thats not the case. Its also non notable, and could be a hoax. Also its written by the chairman/owner of the college. As much as i'd like to be nice, it just wont work. CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 03:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mainly written to promote a non-notable college. JIP | Talk 06:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed to keep per all the other keep votes below. JIP | Talk 17:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Colleges are almost inherently notable. This article is written absolutely terribly (presumably by non-native speaker), but the subject itself look notable. LotLE×talk 08:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as colleges are presumed to be notable. I cleaned this up a little. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 12:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 12:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a degree awarding college. I have improved the cats. TerriersFan (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup seriously. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan and continue to improve via the editing process. RFerreira (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filamatic

Fails WP:COMPANY. Gives one secondary source, but not multiple ones. Only news sources are from press releases. Article borders on WP:ADVERT. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small privately held company with little to no media coverage. LotLE×talk 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JIP | Talk 06:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a consumer business, and most of the references given are to trade websites. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP, should have been speedied. ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I tried a CSD on it, but it was declined. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh yes I saw that. What I meant was that it should have been speedily deleted per your original nomination. – ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 12:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete All --JForget 00:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brothers Fall 2005 Promo Tour

I am also nominating the following related pages because none of them have much more than a tour schedule and a setlist, which are substantial or notable enough to merit their own articles:

Delete. Tour itself is not notable, content is nothing more than tour dates and setlist, so WP:IINFO applies Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rwiggum. LotLE×talk 04:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A summary on the band's main article should suffice. Black ngold29 06:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Blackngold29: tours are not notable unless something notable happens on them (like the band's bus running into a ravine, for example) LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (all) per LonelyBeacon (having an article for every tour that a band performs is as ridiculous as having an article for every flight that an airline operates), plus the fact that mindless celebrity obsession and WP:N are two completely different things, only the former of which the article appears to satisfy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rwriggum Sceptre ^(talk) 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why should we delete it, just because the Jonas Brothers didn't have an accident on the tour, besides, before I created the article, I noticed that most well-known band/singers have tour articles for a tour that's long, like this one. ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Calliegal[reply]

Delete all per nomination ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Look Me In The Eyes" there's been a show: Jonas Brothers: Living the Dream based on the tour ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Calliegal[reply]
Comment "Look Me in the Eyes Tour" and "Burning Up TOur" because its been sold out in minutes, beating out other well-known singers and bands ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Calliegal[reply]
Well, if that is the case, then there should be an article for the show, not the tour itself. The tour itself does not appear to be notable enough to deserve an entry.
Comment - I used the bus running into the ravine as a half joke. Seriously though, the article as it stands is nothing more than a directory of dates and venues. I'm sure they are advertised in legit third party sources, but that does not confer notability in this case, as it is in violation of what wikipedia is not. Selling out in minutes is not notable as several tours have accomplished that. I know there are fans of this group out there, and they do have my sympathies but WP:ILIKEIT is not grounds for keeping an article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Jonas Brothers Fall 2005 Promo Tour because the majority of that tour consisted of the group appearing as the opening act for somebody else's tour, for which we already have an article, and "Fall 2005 Promo Tour" sounds like an administrative name rather than a name under which the tour would be known to the public. No opinion as to the other tours. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 12:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield Art Center

Unnotable local museum. Only a few local paper hits discussing anniversary. The building won a single in 1971 for its architecture. Failed CSD - declined for not being a person (non-admin) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that the references in the article are enough to demonstrate notability. --Eastmain (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It only has one ref, from a local paper. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the article is stubby, I don't think it has a lack of notability --T-rex 02:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as if I'd ever !vote anything else on a museum/gallery while this turns up a fair amount of event listings, there's enough from which to create an article. No doubt it needs to be improved but current state is not a reason for deletion. I see far more than local coverage so I'm assuming something happened with the nom's search. Goog'hiccup. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk are event listings and local newspaper listings. As a note, its current stubby state is because the nom originally created as a copyvio of the museum site, which User:Eastmain fixed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I found some interstate. I'm going to work on the article when I have a bit more time and if it isn't during this AfD and it gets deleted I'll do it in userspace. I have no doubt this isn't the Met, but I think I can establish notability. I know you don't nom without looking, which was why I blamed a google hiccup. Either way, we'll see where this lands. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only does it have basic notability (the fact that it is covered in reliable 3rd party sources), the building has won an award. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the subject of secondary sources (there's no "local sources don't count" clause in WP:NOTABILITY), but the building is of architectural note as its design won a national award. --Oakshade (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per T-rex. LotLE×talk 04:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existing source and potential for improvement. Townlake (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I expanded it so that there isn't more tag than texts. I need to do more but am on limited time. This at least gives it some context. There are more sources (linked above) if someone has more time. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is actually rather well-known in the art world. I am genuinely surprised to see this here. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks pretty much notable and it do indeed have reliable sources. --Kanonkas : Talk 19:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are no clear guidelines regarding articles on tours and certainly no consensus to delete in this discussion. --Stormie (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Waking Up Laughing Tour

Unsourced and indiscriminate info. Little more than a setlist and listing, indiscriminate info. Per consensus regarding tours, these aren't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that there is any such "consensus regarding tours". Wasted Time R (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is: WP:OUTCOMES#Music Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a guideline of WP:MUSIC, that's just somebody's assessment of AfD's for tour articles. And an inaccurate assessment, by the way: a recent attempt to delete most of the Rolling Stones tour articles was a one-sided rout against the nom; attempts to delete Kiss tour articles failed, and attempts to delete Bon Jovi tour articles failed. In general, the only ones that have succeeded have been those against articles that only listed tour dates and setlists, nothing else. Which I haven't tried to defend; anyone who writes that lame an article, has what's coming. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But those groups and subsequent tours have much more history to them than this tour. I think that's the main reason their deletion noms were denied. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stones certainly do, agreed; the guy who tried to delete The Rolling Stones American Tour 1969 was out of his mind. But I would argue that Martina McBride is just as important a figure to country music as Bon Jovi and Kiss (ugh, sorry) are to rock. Indeed, McBride's tours showcase the purist approach to concerts, in a genre that sometimes gets fancy or schmaltzy — she dresses simply, no costume changes, focuses on the music and her singing. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, a pretty standard concert tour with nothing really special about it. I understand that she made more money off of this than her last album or whatever your argument is, but I thin you just made my argument for me: It's a standard tour. There isn't really anything all that special about it, and I just don't think that it deserves an article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you about that. But you still haven't explained why How I Feel (Martina McBride song), which conveys virtually no information that isn't already on Waking Up Laughing, deserves an article, while this tour article, which conveys lots of information that isn't anywhere else, does not. In your language, what makes that single more "special" than the tour? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to. This is an article about the Waking Up Laughing tour, not "How I Feel". And to be honest, it isn't special. If you feel so strongly about it, then go ahead and nominate it for AfD. Just because that article exists isn't a valid argument for keeping this one. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a general argument that the notion that 'all albums and all charted singles are automatically notable, while tours rarely are' is very misguided. Since this notion seems to be your rationale for the string of tour AfD's you have put up, it's quite relevant to this discussion. If, for example, you wanted to drastically shrink the number of music articles in general, and say that for someone like McBride we should have one bio article and one discography article and nothing else, that would be a coherent position. (That's the way Wikipedia was, just a few years ago!) But your current stance just seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT towards tour articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just trying focusing specifically on tour articles with little notability and content at the moment. If you want to nominate the song, that's your deal, but I've got enough AfD noms to keep track of for right now. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been up for 15 months and no one has complained, you are doing this to be spiteful. If it has been up for more than a year, there is no reason to delete it now. User: Rszeliga89 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.114.60 (talk)

The age of a page is immaterial. There's stuff that's even older that probably doesn't belong. I am not doing this to be spiteful, please assume some good faith. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page does not contain any notable or useful content. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a reasonably good tour article. It covers the same kind of information an album or single article does — time frame of creation, song contents, level of commercial success, special event aspects, and so on. Lots of newspaper reviews are listed, which gives third-party sources for further references. Yes, inline citation would be helpful, so tag it. More people likely saw McBride on this tour than bought her albums at the time, and she likely made more money from it. Touring is a vital part of the modern music industry, and getting moreso; the live concert experience is one thing that can't be digitally downloaded or duplicated. There is reason to improve this article, but not to delete it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, we're arguing the merits of this article, not concert tours in general. Yes, there are plenty of newspaper articles, but this doesn't seem like a particularly notable tour in general. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this! I enjoy looking at tour pages because I enjoy seeing the set lists, reading about the acts that are playing, and seeing the links to reviews all in one place! It's very valuable to a music fan like me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.55.180 (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually you are on the warpath against tour articles in general, but to deal with this one ... it was one of the top-grossing country tours of the year. It had unusual setlist changes for a country tour. It featured her first live recording. If you ask me, this tour is a lot more important and notable than How I Feel (Martina McBride song), the second single of her album around this same time that only charted to #15; this tour article has a lot more useful information, insight, and importance than that single article does. I don't understand the rationale behind this AfD. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Neutral Looking at Wasted Time R's arguments of special importance of this tour makes me lack confidence in "delete" (but not quite convinced of "keep"); I'll just stay out of this vote. LotLE×talk 04:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Rwiggum. LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This tour article actually has references, unlike the others. It also went from 12 April 2007 - 18 October 2008, which has to be some kind of a record. It is a significant enough tour to warrant an article, has 3rd party sources, etc. Myrrideon (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources and links in the article indicate notability and provide verifiability. I also question the idea that there is any consensus on wikipedia regarding articles on tours. --Bardin (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, the only sources are reviews. I would hope that a truly notable tour would have more than reviews. I do hope that the folks at WP:MUSIC will start the process of coming up with a clearer delineation of what defines a "notable" tour" to avoid problems in the future. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with reviews? They are the main form of coverage that anyone in a creative field can expect to receive. --Bardin (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as Wikipedia is not Pollstar - that means not a concert announcement site.--JForget 23:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Ride Tour

Delete. Tour itself is not notable, content is nothing more than tour dates and setlist, so WP:IINFO applies Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and indiscriminate. Individual tours don't usually merit articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closing admin, please don't forget the category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable, no sources. Black ngold29 06:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:OUTCOMES#Music. LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rwiggum Sceptre ^(talk) 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think that I am going to suggest delete for all tours unless there's a particularly special one somewhere. Myrrideon (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes I think we have a wider policy/guideline issue here. Where's the best place to open a discussion - the WP:MUSIC talk page? – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I couldn't agree more .... it is an area that could use clarification, even if my particular viewpoint is not held up by the community. I would also advise WP:MUSIC. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Deletion of all tours? Including The Rolling Stones American Tour 1969? Zoo TV Tour? Blond Ambition World Tour? Rolling Thunder Revue? Bruce Springsteen with The Seeger Sessions Band Tour? The Beatles' 1965 USA Tour? And so forth, there are many very good tour articles out there, these are just a few examples. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone, including me, is saying that "all tours" should be deleted. What I think we are saying is that there should be a more clear statement on what delineates "notable tour" from "non-notable tour". To clarify my position, I think that tours are rarely notable. That is likely one side of a fringe belief (the other being: since all tours are invariably written about somewhere, all tours are inherently notable). I would not enforce my belief on the community, even though that seems to be the general direction the community is leaning. Rather, I think the policy should be clarified to avoid having to go through gut wrenching AfD's that can get contentious, and to avoid having people spend time making articles that may eventually get deleted. If the notability parameters are clarified, that should ease up some of the problems. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that is, if I may say so, an excellent summary of the issue. – ukexpat (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete 2 Worlds, 2 Voices Tour 2008, delete all the others. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reba McEntire 2008 Tour

Delete. Tour itself is not notable, content is nothing more than tour dates and setlist, so WP:IINFO applies Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and indiscriminate. Individual tours don't usually merit articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added all of her other tours as they don't seem to meet notability either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except 2 Worlds, 2 Voices Tour 2008 - besides the one, none of these tours appear to have any claim to notability and little more than a setlist and a list of dates. 2 Worlds, 2 Voices Tour 2008 does provide notability --T-rex 03:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep on 2 Worlds, 2 Voices Tour 2008. This is an unusual, cross-genre two-artist tour, that among other things is an important aspect of Kelly Clarkson's attempt to rebuild her career after her highly-publicized My December problems. The article has a number of legitimate cites and certainly can be expanded further with the newspaper reviews that are listed. All of these factors make it notable. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except 2 Worlds, 2 Voices Tour 2008. per Wasted Time R and T-rex. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - WP:OUTCOMES#Music. LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Outcomes" is not a guideline or policy, just somebody's assessment of recent AfD results. In this case, it's inaccurate; sets of tour articles by the Rolling Stones, Kiss, and Bon Jovi have all survived recent AfD's. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

true, but it does show a trend in the consensus of the community. True, there are some tours that are notable enough for their own articles, but, from my reading of policy and the notability asserted of these tours, these tours only warrant mention on the performer's page. My reading of these articles does not show, to me, that they are notable enough to buck the trend. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding. Someone is leading a very sad life if they need to go around marking tour pages for deletion. As a music fan, I enjoy coming to Wikipedia and reading tour articles because I like to read about the acts, I like to see the cities they visited, I like to read the set list, and I also enjoy seeing links to reviews all in one convenient place. Of course these tours are relevant...any tour supports an artist, and there are very few country singers more successful than Reba McEntire. PLEASE don't delete these! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.55.180 (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unfortunately, "don't delete it because I like to read it" isn't a valid argument against deletion. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rwiggum Sceptre ^(talk) 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and the Hammer ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Obviously fancruft. 0 references. Tours are only worthwhile if something special happens with them. This one didn't. Just say in the Reba McEntire article that she went on tour. That's all we need to know. Myrrideon (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the problem with these bundled AfD's. 2 Worlds, 2 Voices Tour 2008 has 8 references, not 0, but is being punished for the sins of Reba McEntire 2008 Tour. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Mersing Nguyen. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 b/c WP:SNOW --JForget 00:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change for Change Tour

Delete. While the band itself is notable, the tour itself is not. What's more, tour dates and setlists are not enough content to justify an article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have no doubt there was significant press coverage at the time (though it'd be nice to see WP:RS in there). JJL (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't doubt that there was press coverage, but a tour is not notable enough to deserve it's own page. It should be merged with the band's page, as per WP:MUSIC Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to what part of WP:MUSIC are you referring? I only see a mention of tours as a means of demonstrating notability. Regarding the comment below, if there were a CMT On Tour article I could see a merge but lacking it some page on that tour seems appropriate. The current one tilts toward Sugarland over the CMT connection. JJL (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tours aren't usually notable enough for their own pages. Sugarland certainly are notable, but there don't seem to be any reliable sources pertaining entirely to the tour. Never mind that a live recording from said tour charted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, upon reading, article makes no claim of notability for the tour. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 03:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Black ngold29 06:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:OUTCOMES#Music. LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rwiggum Sceptre ^(talk) 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another tour article. Myrrideon (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chirundu.com

Speedy, prod both declined as there are assertions of notability. However, the article still reads like an ad, and there don't seem to be enough sources available to demonstrate notability. BradV 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless non-notability can be shown, because it is not clearly an advertisment and because the page can be improved (WP:ATD). As far as I can tell, only two portions can plausibly sound like advertising: (1) "is probably the largest internet based community", and (2) the section "social importance". Portion (1), if the word "probably" is removed, would be third-party verifiable (WP:SOAP #4) and portion (2) is a statement about the benefits of social networking to the country and it is, if anything, a justification for the conitnued existence of the website rather than an advertisement for Zimbabweans to use the website.--Samuel Tan (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Keep unless non-notability can be shown" - non-notability is shown by the complete lack of third party sources. Beyond that, the burden of evidence should be upon those making the claim of notability. Mdwh (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is made by User:Chirundu, so WP:COI is probable. It also doesn't have any legit sources to back it's claims. All it has are two articles which aren't even directly about the site to begin with. One of the links addresses that "4 million Zimbabweans living abroad", and the other is a link to a font site which the logo is supposedly derived from. That's it. A quick google search doesn't pull up any reliable, independent sources either. The Social Importance section is obvious POV and original research. The Profiles and Logos section are really superfluous, and the section detailing the name (while encyclopedic) doesn't back up the subject of the article in terms of notability. The main section itself is probably the only real concrete thing there, but even that unless you find other sources detailing how popular it is, is hard to verify.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I note that the account that wrote this article has been indefinitely blocked, supposedly because of allegations of trying to advertise their product. This makes this AFD somewhat unfair, as they can't back up their assertions of notoriety. Myrrideon (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Despite my delete vote, I feel you make a valid point. The user was warned for spamming, e.g., [66], where AFAICT the links in question where those reverted at [67]. Firstly, these were links included in the article that user Chirundu wrote (as opposied to inserting spam links to an existing article), secondly a link to a website's URL is not considered spam when that site is the topic of the article (see Wikipedia:External_links), and thirdly, the other link was a reference (whilst it is probably unnecessary as a link, it was mostly likely a Good Faith edit, and should not be assumed as spam resulting in a warning or block). Mdwh (talk) 20:28, 13 July 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 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:WEB. Article does not provide sources necessary to assert notability. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but encourage editors with conflict-of-interest to refrain from editing it. LotLE×talk 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: original author had obvious conflict of interest. Also, it is blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:V. There is one source there that never mentions the website at all, meaning there are really zero sources. LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to knock this one, given the situation in Zimbabwe today, but it fails WP:RS and WP:WEB too easily. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clearly G11 in my view. ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Being the best of a country is always relevant. The most popular online website in the country is relevant. Zimbabwe right now is a nation in conflict, where the people don't have a voice, and where many of them have fled as refugees. Online communities like this provide that voice and are important. Similar to how the Dalai Llama is living in exile and is a well known figure now. This is a special situation and should be handled in a special way. The site has been about since 1996, and while the amount of traffic that they are getting ordinarily wouldn't be enough for an article, in this case I think it is. Myrrideon (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like spam, no references to verify notability, been up for over a month without such references being supplied. Ray Yang (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see above. The person that wrote the article was indef blocked for writing it, hence not allowed to make claims of notoriety. That is somewhat unfair then to have an AFD with no theoretical chance of fixing the article. Myrrideon (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was only blocked yesterday. This AfD has been open since July 3. BradV 14:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he had pretty much a whole week to make his case.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - This editor got tagged on May 23 to improve he article or risk having it deleted ... so there has been more than just a few days. Further, that was about the time of his last edit, and he was blocked for spamming. Not sure why it took so long. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author being blocked is immaterial. WP:WEB is clear. If this site were notable ANY editor should be able to find the evidence. It is a website. It's notability exists on the internet. If we can't find it there it isn't going to exist somewhere else.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. ~~A blocked user can always participate in AfD discussions (and in improving the article) anonymously.~~ UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't advocate block avoidance but if the blocked user truly had anything he could post it on his talk page.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party sources. This vote should not be taken to imply a delete vote on any future articles with the same or similar name - if third party sources can be found, then perhaps the article is worth having. Mdwh (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Tree Friends: It's Largest, Biggest, Longest and Cutest

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Happy Tree Friends: It's Largest, Biggest, Longest and Cutest

Contested prod. Rationale was "The only source is a wiki, supposed poster is clearly fake, website given on the poster does not exist. A Google search returns several previous hoaxes along these lines. No mention on the official HTF website. Overall, seems to be a hoax." In any case, this looks like a blatant case of WP:CRYSTAL. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Clearly a hoax, given no mention on official HTF website, and the grammatical error on the poster ("it's" instead of "its"). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the lone source sums it up very nicely --T-rex 03:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's concerns. Ɔrassic ^(talk) 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. LotLE×talk 04:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 06:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No reason for notability given. Black ngold29 06:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Williams (footballer born 1990)

He has never played at a professional level. Does not meet criteria per WP:Athlete and WP Football notability. Ɔrassic ^(talk) 00:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability per WP:ATHLETE; also poorly named article. JJL (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually quite common for multiple players of the same name and/or nationality. But after looking at the disambig page, yes, it actually is a bad title. Ɔrassic ^(talk) 02:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to meet notability threshold. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless the fact that his youth club was Manchester United F.C. turns out to be true --T-rex 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a youth player—regardless of club—does not confer notability. Ɔrassic ^(talk) 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet requirements of WP:ATHLETE or the debated WP:FOOTYN -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE (youth players with no first team appearances in a fully professional league are not notable). --Angelo (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other noms and WP:ATHLETE --Numyht (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ATHLETE. LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Youth players that have not appeared in a fully professional league do not satisfy the notability criteria for athletes. WilliamH (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 15:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not played a professional game yet Sceptre ^(talk) 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE, no professional games, can be re-created when he makes his debut for Oldham. Sunderland06 (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hate to ruin everyone's day, but he signed for a premier league club, Oldham Athletic A.F.C. only yesterday. That's sufficiently notable. Can't expect him to play the day after he is first signed up, can you? Myrrideon (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those who signed for a club ever have a chance to play? SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once he makes a league appearance, then we'll recreate the article. Until then, he's not notable whatsoever. Ɔrassic ^(talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either you're 14 years behind the times, or from another dimension, but Oldham Athletic haven't been a Premier League club since 1994. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he fails WP:Athlete and there's no evidence he could merit an article under any of the other WP:Bio categories. Vickser (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is non-notable as per WP:ATHLETE. I did a Google search and all that same up was a poker player with the same name and a comedian with the same name. Nothing about David Williams the footballer showed up, so no reliable (or any) sources means a non-notable subject. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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