Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 30 December 2 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Martinez (football)

[edit]
Willie Martinez (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was placed only to attack the subject of the article. High probability of libel in this article. Surfbum (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Worthless libel attacking an individual.[reply]

  • Comment This article has been vandalized repeatedly by IP users the last day or so. A couple of named users have tried reverting to the original stub, most recently here. I don't know that an assistant coach in a I-A football program is necessarily notable so I won't say keep yet, but it shouldn't be deleted just because it's being attacked. Rklear (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The concerns about orginal research and synthesis are well founded. I will userfy if asked, but it will require signifcant improvement to return to mainspace. I hope that it does, as we certainly could use better coverage of these topics. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asianic religions

[edit]
Asianic religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

'Asianic religions' is not a commonly used term - I can find only find 3 references to it on Google books, the most recent being 1987, and those don't seem to match the use here. I get 3 hits relating to Star Wars, etc. The one source being used describes itself as an 'occult library'. Basically OR. dougweller (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, in the early Roman Empire there was still a province called "Asia", though later the term "Anatolia" became more in vogue.0XQ (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The objection to the article seems to be based on its title. But if there is a more appropriate title it can be renamed. I don't see a good argument, however, against the substance of this new article that hasn't even been allowed to develop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was trying to give time for the article to be developed. But unless it's rewritten I don't see what there is to save. As best I can tell it doesn't discuss Asianic religions (leaving aside for the moment whether this is a good subject title). The intro gives some kind of deinition and then there are long lists of words giving various translations(?) and definitions. This article doesn't seem to comport with Wikipedia's standards so I'm unsure what to make of it. Maybe its author can explain? It almost seems to border on nonsense... ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[author] This article is in a style similar to that of Hittite religion -- a list of Anatolian deities and their main features (meaning of names). It does, however, add some cognate terms (names of deities, etc.) from related (Indo-European) religions, to provide some familiar reference-points. Also, it brings the area-study down to a later date, by showing how the transition into Christianity was made by transforming pre-Christian deities into characteristics of Christian ones; which may be helpful to indicate relevance of ancient Anatolian religion to the present-day religious world. (Altogether too many historical studies are written of obsolete beliefs and trends, without any attempt to connect them with surviving ones.)0XQ (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article's author has written a new introduction that deserves consideration. I think similar explanations of the other sections would also be helpful, and additional references for the new intros assertions (unless they are common knowledge?) would also be helpful. Given evidence that the article can be improved I lean towards a keep.ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The new introduction does not mitigate my strong impression that the article is largely original research, presenting a novel combination and synthesis, albeit drawing on by themselves sourceable elements.  --Lambiam 18:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L'Aquatique[talk] 19:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no problems with a comparative approach, diachronically, synchronically, or monochronically. But I have a serious problem with, well, not understanding what this article is about. For instance, what does a statement like "The Ĥattic name for the Moon-god..." have to do with Asianic religion? That's what the article should explain, and it does not--because it is written in what I'll call a non-standard style. And this style is not a literary style, it's simply not very good English. It's incoherent. It's grammatically challenged. I mean, if the terms 'Hattic' and 'Marcionite' simply pop in without any kind of explanation of what they have to do with these Asianic religions, then what is a reader to make of this? Drmies (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I also have no problem with such an approach, but I have little confidence in the quality of the article. Not just with respect to understandabilty, but at least equally important, I have the impression that the degree of synthesis here amounts to OR. I'd like to see sufficient references to establish that the generalizations here are in fact the academic consensus. DGG (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no evidence that this article represents a coherent single topic. It doesn't provide sufficient context to really judge the quality of the contents, and jumps between facts (apparently) about pre-Christian Anatolian religion and Anatolian elements of early Christianity. I don't see the current article developing into anything. Useful factoids can be incorporated into whatever articles on early Christianity or pre-Hellenic religion are appropriate, if sufficient information for creating a whole article about pre-Christian Anatolian religion, one can be created at that time. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannosaurus Rex (film)

[edit]
Tyrannosaurus Rex (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm a bit hesitant to AFD this as I am a fan of Rob Zombie, and I'm looking forward to this film, but at the same time...it's way too early. Rob himself has said on Fangoria Radio he only has one sentence done on this film (and that Dimension's release date is waaay premature). The only real reliable information on the article is that Sheri Moon is set to star in the film. Everything else is pretty much hearsay at the moment. (Lew Temple's involvement, while probably true, is only sourced from someone's run in with him at a convention on his MySpace, and the plot summary was given by a "regular scooper" to Bloody-Disgusting.com) CyberGhostface (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Stands Still

[edit]
Blood Stands Still (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As I see it, these guys fail the WP:MUSICBIO section of the notability guidelines. No notable members, no nomination for any awards, no charting songs, ect. Tavix (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPAIF

[edit]
PPAIF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This term is a neologism. The reference given describes a campaign to have the term 'listed in the dictionary'. There is no evidence that this term has achieved widespread use. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdraw Nomination as it has been cleaned up to the point where the notability issues have been met. (NAC) Tavix (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CANUSA

[edit]
CANUSA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable "olympic" games per WP:ORG. Tavix (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chillicothe,Ohio Aerial Photo's

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Chillicothe,Ohio Aerial Photo's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia articles aren't really meant to serve as image galleries. It'd make sense to add these photos (when/if they come 'round) to articles on the area, but I don't see why they need their own separate article. Vianello (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user account has to be autoconfirmed (established for four days and ten edits) to upload images to WP. Commons has no such restriction, so the author of this article can go there and upload the photos now if he wants. There are no images here to transwiki at the moment, so my "delete" opinion remains unchanged. Deor (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I didn't realise that as I didn' try and upload an image till I'd been on here for several months..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACT NOW! Drama Company

[edit]
ACT NOW! Drama Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've watched this article for a few days now as it has been regularly edited by the author. It has yet to show any evidence of notability and is still unreferenced. Enough! Paste Talk 22:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Google search reviews nothing independant in terms of sources; the article cannot assert it's notability. —Matt (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. WP:BOLD merge (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 01:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azulon

[edit]
Azulon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A very minor character within the plot of the Avatar: The Last Airbender television series. Other secondary characters (such as Mai, Suki, and Ty Lee) with much more screen time had their pages removed for the same reason. His mention on List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters#Major secondary characters will be sufficient enough once some one adds a sentence or two. -- Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the article's talk page. I originally wanted to redirect it, but the editor who has put the most effort into the page objected. I started this AFD based on their request. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Savage

[edit]
Shane Savage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Once he has played at the fully professional level of this sport he can be recreated but until then this is just a crystal ball AFL stub. --VS talk 22:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Watts (Australian footballer)

[edit]
Jack Watts (Australian footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Despite claims to the contrary simply being picked in the draft does not make this person notable and therefore he appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Once he has played at the fully professional level of this sport he can be recreated but until then this is just a crystal ball AFL stub. --VS talk 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Monty

[edit]
Harry Monty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An actor with many roles, but they are all minor. I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Vector and the Lovely Lovelies

[edit]
Violet Vector and the Lovely Lovelies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I know the guy who wrote this, and he compiled the article in its entirety directly from an interview with the lead singer. What more do you need to hear? It is totally legit.

Local band that doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC, despite a couple of reviews in local media. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This band has been reviewed in both Paste (magazine) [1] and Curve (magazine) [2] on top of being listed on the blog site, Idolator as No.1 for the "Top 40 of 2007"[3] Also, bassist Alex Maiolo also plays in the band Hi Fi Sky with Tim Sommer Blu3cat (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the references for the VVLL articles in Paste< -- its not available online unfortunately.

I was notified about the reviews in the magazine, but did not have access to provide accurate references, since I do not own any subscription. I believe the only question left is that of blatant adverstisement. Could you point out the issues that concern you most? If you think about it, any wikipedia article for a band is advertisement inadvertantly. There are no advertised shows, album sales or any sales pitches for one to listen to the band. Clarification would be great because the band is notable enough to deserve an article. Mfleader 1 December 2008

Notability is established through authoritative, independent, third-party, in-depth coverage. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The independent third parties of importance are the news stations WRAL-TV, Curve (magazine), Paste (magazine), The News & Observer, and Idolator.com. In addition under WP:MUSIC, they also establish notability in being the most prominent representative of the style neo-psychedelia in the Chapel Hill music scene. Both news stations are the major new stations in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle. This is the second largest metropolitan demographic area in the state behind Charlote-Gastonia-Salisbury, which is mostly Charlotte anyways. Please refer North Carolina for demographics. The question of blatant advertisement still stands and I will gladly handle it if clarification is given. Mfleader 1 December 2008 20:33 Eastern Time (US & Canada) (I don't know what time zone everyone else is posting from)

Okay, the poetic flourishes are unintentional, but I am getting better and will cut them out in the future, but Drmies you did cut out the entire band's history rather than make the necessary deletions. Every band on wikipedia has a history, so i will continue to re-edit the page in order to make it satisfactory. Mfleader 20:56 (eastern time)

I haven't found anything on wikipedia about citing a personal interview with a band member. Or does it just not count because I do not count as a reputable source? Mfleader 22:07 01 December 2008(Eastern time)

  • I think that as long as the interview was published in a reliable source it's ok. If it was personal though (you interviewing a band member that wasn't for a publication), there's no real way to gauge the verifiability of that interview, and thus can't be cited as a source. What I think is more frowned upon is if it was published by the band itself. TheLetterM (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Now, verifiability can be achieved in any number of ways--the interview could be published, for instance. But that the source be independent, that's another matter. Moreover, and this goes directly to the flourishes, the information in an encyclopedic matter needs to be relevant. The band's history may well be relevant, but who met how when and where, and what they talked about, and how they hit it off, in most cases that's simply not relevant--and the cases where it is relevant, well, you're talking George Martin and the Beatles, or Rick Rubin and Johnny Cash. VV is not there yet. Hairsalon Moshi Moshi? A birthday party? How is that not chit-chat, as my dissertation director used to call my flourishes? It's little things like 'as previously stated.' If it was previously stated, why say it again? In an article about a band that has one EP, an article that calls for three paragraphs at the most? I'm not sure, Mfleader, if you realize that what you might think of as rigorous edits actually increase the chance of the article surviving Afd. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I understand and I will be even more rigorous in deleting minor details you refer to as poetic flourishes. I was under the impression a poetic flourished only involved floury wording, which I am trying to cut out. However, I am determined to redeem this article. Even the meanest, bare-bones history of a band's origin and formation is entirely relevant and necessary in an entry in an encyclopedia; it does not become relevant after a #1 hit or gold album. It was important beforehand. I understand that since they are a relatively new band there will only be a minor entry. Have the issues of notability and blatant advertisement been dealt with thoroughly? Mfleader 21:48, 01 December 2008 (Eastern Time)

The article is much, much better than it was. At least now it's less a blog entry than an encyclopedia entry--the idolator and eardrumsmusic entries are written in pretty much the same style as the earlier versions. Still, and this in reference to the idolator entry (scroll down), the only hair salon I know that is relevant in music is found on "Oh My Lord" by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, No More Shall We Part. Seriously, the article still has a lot of fluff.
Now, if the community agrees that the article from the Newsobserver and the Indy blog have enough weight (cause the others really are just blogs, with little or no authority), then WP:N might be established. But I still say that the article is way, way too long for a band that hasn't achieved that much yet (doesn't WP:Music mention two albums, on a major label?). Drmies (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not discount the "blog" interview on WRAL, while it is a blog, the WRAL news station is definitely a reputable source, hence their electronic authors on their blogs receive the same credence they do. Nor should you forget the reviews in the magazines previously mentioned. I hope that helps my argument. I took out the part about the hair salon too. Yes WP:Music does mention 2 albums on a major label or active indie label (how ironic would a major indie label be?). Their next album is due out this spring, I know that doesn't mean anything right now, but I guarantee to repost the article upon that release if the community does not feel it meets notability standards now. Mfleader 22:16 01 December 2008 (eastern time)

Mfl, please refer to the Talk page--we're well outside of what should be discussed of AfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now--while I don't have easy access to two more of the sources mentioned, I have faith that they're there. Moreover, the author, who is new to WP, is working really hard on this and we'll make this look good; I will accept the band's notability. Dear Admins, sorry for messing up the AfD page; I should have moved to the Talk page sooner. Mea culpa! Drmies (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Notes and references

[edit]
  1. ^ Ray, Austin L. "The Report", "Paste (magazine)", May 2008.
  2. ^ Coble, Margaret. "EP I, Violet Vector & the Lovely Lovelies","Curve (magazine)", June 2008.
  3. ^ Johnston, Maura. "No. 1 (And No. 1): Backyard Tea Parties And Blue Balls", Idolator, 2007-12-31. Retrieved on 2008-12-02.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Empezar desde Cero Tour 2008.  Sandstein  23:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RBD - Empezar Desde Cero World Tour

[edit]
RBD - Empezar Desde Cero World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another apparently non-notable band. The article consists of nothing but effusive adulation and track listings, and no sources. There are a few hits on Google beyond the usual facebooky and myspacey links- these are all in Spanish, which I don't understand, but judging from the web addresses they don't look like the reliable sources we require. Reyk YO! 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Sandstein  23:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never (word)

[edit]
Never (word) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary or translation guide. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thats great. Than it can go there where the pigs fly and the Hell freezes over.Warrington (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,

By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.

Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'


Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'


Warrington (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stagevu

[edit]
Stagevu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE Black Kite 00:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eamonn Kelly (priest)

[edit]
Eamonn Kelly (priest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I first put a PROD tag on this article but it was immediately removed by the author, no changes have been made to the article. This seems to be a non notable priest, with no independent third party refs/sources. I can find no evidence to make me feel this should remain. Paste Talk 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Balloholic is the articles author. Paste Talk 21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Yes...I know. Than You.--Balloholic (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check - http://www.donegaltimes.com/2007/08_1/other.html and http://vocation.covingtondiocese.org/msgr_rutz.html http://www.westmeathindependent.ie/archive/1/114 http://www.legionariesofchrist.org/eng/articulos/imprimir.phtml?se=355&ca=620&te=475&id=19033&imprimir=1 --Balloholic (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I don't see anything in those articles to establish notability. Either can't find the subject or trivia coverage --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is the 2nd keep vote by the articles creator. Snappy (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref - http://www.cinews.ie/article.php?artid=4238 , a website which publishes publish texts of important Church documents.
Priest Reference - http://www.raphoediocese.com/priests.htm)
Book Ref - http://www.goodshepherdsisters.com/index.php?option=com_cifeed&task=newsarticle&artid=4238 , an International Catholic Congregation of Women Religious
Book Ref - http://www.donegallibrary.ie/memory/2006DONEGALSTUDIESlist.pdf , at Donegal library
Ref on sex abuse - http://www.speedreading.com/phpBB2/ftopic77142.html
Comment Also, I can't help but notice that the author of the article (who has registered a 'keep' !vote twice) and two IP addresses with no contributions whatsoever make the the entirety of the "keep" positions. Trusilver 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I see...but life is full of major coincidences. I think this will pass as a minor one.--Balloholic (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - If you're not familiar with wp:sock puppet, you may want to take a look. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable, fails WP:BIO. I also not that the creator of this article has voted twice to keep it. And out of the blue 2 anon IPs have just happened to stumble across this deletion discussion. Methinks a checkuser request may be in order. Snappy (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both.  Sandstein  23:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Wyss

[edit]
Heidi Wyss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N, and seems to fail WP:CREATIVE. No hits in Google News or Books. The only sources in the article are to a WomenWriters.net review and the The Secret Society of Lesbian Propellerheads main page which leads to this review on literateweb.com of the book, which is used as the assertion of notability. Neither of the sites that contain any actual content look reliable, and both focus solely on the book. Speaking of the book:

Gormglaith (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doesn't appear to meet inclusion standards either. It meets none of the criteria listed at WP:BK. The lack of an ISBN is a non-starter, actually. The only sources in this article are the WomenWriters.net review noted above and this skepchick.org interview with Wyss, which also looks to be of questionable reliability. لennavecia 21:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ms. Wyss fails the notability guidelines for creative professionals; I have found no useful information in JSTOR, Google News' archives, or Google Books about them. They do not appear to be cited (or even acknowledged) by any peers, have not pioneered any concepts that are important to the history of English literature, and have never had any of their works win significant critical attention. Gormglaith has not been covered in any manner aside from this review on a blog with volunteer writers and no editorial oversight; the author of the review has never been the subject of interest from mainstream media or scholarly publications aside from a trivial mention in the San Francisco Chronicle. This review is by another unremarkable author and is published in Quiet Mountain Essays, a publication with little prominence and no impact factor to the best of my knowledge. The novel has no ISBN and appears to be published exclusively online by Literate Web, a vanity press. Additionally, some of the reviews on the publisher's site appear fabricated, such as the quotes attributed to Liz Henry, Lili Pintea-Reed, and All Night Surfing. Both articles should be deleted on the grounds that they are fluff pieces for a non-notable person which cannot be developed into respectable encyclopedia articles. east718 // talk // email // 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional delete of Heidi Wyss. I have not been able to find any significant coverage of the topic in independent RS's (German or English) through searching online. I am willing to reconsider if evidence such coverage is forthcoming. As for Gormglaith (novel), the review in Quiet Mountain essays may be reliable - it's a journal with an ISSN and so on. Does anyone know if the "essays" are peer-reviewed or simply opinion pieces? Is there editorial oversight? Skomorokh 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Yes, QME does have an editorial and QC process: see here for details. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case I am certainly going to give the article the benefit of the doubt and provisional keep of Gormglaith, as the review constitutes significant coverage. Skomorokh 15:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to point out that criteria 1 of WP:BK reads "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. (Emphasis mine) لennavecia 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nahnahnahnah just a guideline. There's more than enough coverage in that source to write an article of decent length that is neutral and verifiable. The only question is the reliability of that source - not fully independent of the subject (as the reviewer discloses), but not related enough to rule it right out. Skomorokh 16:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Still fails the "multiple" part. A single review in an obscure online journal does not meet those criteria. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The purpose of such guidelines is to ensure articles are in compliance with our five pillars. If the content of one source is sufficient to flesh out an article, then I don't see why a second is absolutely necessary, though I'd be interesting to hear arguments to the contrary. Regards, Skomorokh 18:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't think the issue is whether it provides enough information to flesh out the article; it's that having only one source, especially one that is not fully independent of the subject, doesn't do much to establish notability.SheepNotGoats (Talk) 18:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If by "notability" you mean importance, then that is completely irrelevant. This is an encyclopaedia, not a popularity contest. If by notability you mean what WP:GNG means—that the topic has been noted by reliable sources—then having sufficient verifiable coverage to write a decent-length is all that it is about. I share some of your unease about the combination of the source being our only one and the small cloud over independence, but that's not at all enough of a reason to deprive our readers of an article on the topic. Sincerely, Skomorokh 18:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Nahnahnahnah just a guideline." ... "but that's not at all enough of a reason to deprive our readers of an article on the topic." Sooo, it's cool to throw out accepted standards for ILIKEIT? Hmm. I've helped write a couple of articles that at first glance one may call into question as far as notability, but then they're so well sourced that they both got to GA. It's not about popularity, it's about being recognized by reliable sources. One website does not notability make, guideline or not. لennavecia 07:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I am saying that as far as reflecting what our policies require, WP:BK is a poorer guide than WP:GNG. "It's not about popularity, it's about being recognized by reliable sources". Agreed, and no one has yet proffered a convincing argument as to why Quiet Mountain Essays is not a reliable source, or why more than one source is necessary. In that climate, I cannot support deletion. Skomorokh 16:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Here are some reasons why the QME article is not reliable enough to serve as the only source (although #1 should really be enough):
                  1. The author knows the subject of the article personally.
                  2. At one time, QME published all articles received [10], so we don't know whether the article in question was even submitted to a review process.
                  3. QME does not provide information on how articles are currently selected for publication, or on the credentials of the people doing the selecting (and only one individual is mentioned by name on the website).
                  4. Unless I'm reading it wrong, men are not allowed to submit essays [11] (ok, that doesn't really affect it being a reliable source, I just think it's funny).
SheepNotGoats (Talk) 16:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks SheepNotGoats, this is the approach I was looking for. Point 1, we already know, and the fact that the author announces right off their relationship with Wyss is more encouraging than discouraging on the reliability front. This would be a serious concern if we were dealing with a controversial topic - BLP, politics, legal situation etc., but for a uncontroversial niche book I'm not convinced our neutrality is seriously compromised. Points 2 and 3 are in the right direction, but only underline our ignorance of the source's reliability rather than positive indication of the unreliability of this particular review. On point 4, the fact that they are chauvinists does not seem to speak to reliability. The review passes the sniff test - it seems quite unlikely from reading it that the author is lying, incompetent or biased, and if I were deciding whether or not to read the book, this review is something that would certainly influence my decision. There is enough uncertainty here to make me inclined towards a weak keep, but not enough decisive indications of unreliability to move me to delete. Skomorokh 17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to no substantial coverage in third-party sources. The only assertion of notability in the article is a single novel that doesn't even appear in WorldCat, which means that the book probably does not meet WP:BK. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, there don't appear to be reliable independent sources showing notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm off to WP:SF yo see if they know of appropriate coverage.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Very important book in the Secret Society of Lesbian Propellerheads. Apocrypha Discordia pales in comparison ;) Pcap ping 14:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - non-notable writer without substantial coverage; fails all notability tests. Book lacks substantial coverage and has no impact of any kind. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Delete both - unless someone comes up with more sources, this article doesn't meet the inclusion criteria.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the hell?!? delete both. How is it that a longtime editor does not know better? Friday (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both non-notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've notified my colleagues at the Feminism Task Force of this discussion; I hope it's not canvassing and that someone there might be able to shed some light on the real-world significance of the topics. Skomorokh 22:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both due to the lack of substantial coverage from reliable sources, neither article meets the applicable inclusion criterion. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: Neither the article satisfies the notability requirements. Law shoot! 06:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I just want to point out this reidrect page Gormglaith (novel) which should be dealt with in the same way as the main Gormglaith page.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep both: I, once again, mourn the woefully high standards set for proof of notability on Wikipedia. I've nominated many bands for deletion who have never released an album or single, basing their notability entirely on their future plans. I've nominated authors who haven't yet created anything, basing their notability on webcomics that they have in development. Wikipedia is full of articles about artists who have created nothing of note, and perhaps that is why so many editors have a presumption of non-notability rather than a presumption of notability. I am of the opinion that being a published author, or contributing some significant creative work to popular culture (popular commercials, viral videos, etc.), is grounds for notability. Yes, I realize that millions of books are published each year, which opens the door to articles about thousands of published authors each year. Is that a problem? Shouldn't Wikipedia hope to be an inclusive and invaluable resource in the fields of books, movies, authors and directors? The only issue I have, and the reason for my weak keep, is that I haven't found any evidence that the book has been in print. It was supposedly published in 2005, but I can't find any copies on Amazon. I did find it as a free eBook here. Anyone can create an eBook, so having one does not make one a published author. That said, with the rise and bright future of devices such as Kindle, printed books will likely decline in popularity in favour of electronic versions in the near future (much to the relief of trees everywhere). In that case, the distinction becomes one of "published" (by a reputable commercial publisher) vs. self-published, which any Tom, Dick and Harry can do. On the other hand, should the fact that the book is free, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works License, count against her? Her generosity should be encouraged, and an increasing number of authors, artists, musicians, game designers, photographers, and members of other creative fields are making their works freely available under CC licenses. Guns N' Roses officially debuted Chinese Democracy on MySpace, where it's available for free streaming. Is it not a "published" album because they were kind enough to make it free? It comes down to this: if Gormglaith had been published, in physical form, or in electronic form by a regular publisher, it would undeniably make Heidi Wyss a published author and, therefor, notable, and I will vigorously defend the notability of any published author, musician, artist, or other significant contributor to popular culture. In this case I can only find evidence of Gormglaith as a free eBook, but one that is 63 482 words (200 pages) and reviewed by a notable publication. Though only barely, that meets my criteria for being a published author. DOSGuy (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted. Clearly a copyvio of the link provided. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squawk (sound)

[edit]
Squawk (sound) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a reworded copy of this page. Seems like a hoax. Soliloquialtalk 21:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deleted. Clearly a copyvio of the link provided. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squawk (sound)

[edit]
Squawk (sound) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a reworded copy of this page. Seems like a hoax. Soliloquialtalk 21:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to List of Zoids. Possibly merge some content from history. There is consensus that we should not have an article on this, even though there is not clear consensus to delete the content.  Sandstein  23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Horn (Zoid)

[edit]
Red Horn (Zoid) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Zoids. Possibly merge some content from history. There is consensus that we should not have an article on this, even though there is not clear consensus to delete the content.  Sandstein  23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helcat

[edit]
Helcat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Zoids. Possibly merge some content from history. There is consensus that we should not have an article on this, even though there is not clear consensus to delete the content.  Sandstein  23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unenlagia (Zoids)

[edit]
Unenlagia (Zoids) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Zoids. Possibly merge some content from history. There is consensus that we should not have an article on this, even though there is not clear consensus to delete the content.  Sandstein  23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seismosaurus (Zoids)

[edit]
Seismosaurus (Zoids) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Zoids. Possibly merge some content from history. There is consensus that we should not have an article on this, even though there is not clear consensus to delete the content.  Sandstein  23:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iguan

[edit]
Iguan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Zoids. Possibly merge some from history. There is consensus not to have an article on this, if not clear consensus to delete.  Sandstein  23:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wardick

[edit]
Wardick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Zoids. Possibly merge some from history. There is consensus not to have an article on this, if not clear consensus to delete.  Sandstein  23:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leoblaze

[edit]
Leoblaze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Zoids. Possibly merge some content from history. There is consensus that we should not have an article on this, even though there is not clear consensus to delete the content.  Sandstein  23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Fighter

[edit]
Bear Fighter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Zoids. Possibly merge some content from history. There is consensus that we should not have an article on this, even though there is not clear consensus to delete the content.  Sandstein  23:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gunbluster

[edit]
Gunbluster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jen richer

[edit]
Jen richer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Jen Richer created this page to let the world know how great she is for doing her job. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, it's mildly disconcerting that she doens't know that her own surname should have a capital letter ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Mehta

[edit]
Alok Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Indian journalist. Article is little more than a vanity page, and there isn't much to be done here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google news seems to be full of statements he made as president of the Editor's Guild or Outlook magazine editor. Juzhong (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted, CSD A7. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aperion

[edit]
Aperion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This band does not seem to be notable. The only reference provided is the band's home page, and I can't find anything on Google except for myspacey and facebooky type links, and material on unrelated things of the same name. Reyk YO! 19:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deleted. Hoax from a sock of serial hoaxer 5ivetv (talk · contribs) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MusiJoke

[edit]
MusiJoke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-existent channel, no reliable sources to verify its existence. Suspect WP:HOAX, prod removed by anonymous IP without offering a reason. JD554 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Blatant consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faggot (slang)

[edit]
Faggot (slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a slang or usage guide. This article consists solely of dictionary information: definition, origin, etymology, and usage. In an encyclopedia, the entry for "faggot", as a synonym (however derogatory and offensive) for "homosexual", should the same as that for "homosexual", because they cover the same topic. We do not generally have separate entries for different words that refer to the same concept, and I see no reason (given the exclusively dictionary-oriented content of this article) to make an exception here. Powers T 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Are you going to nominate most of the topics in the LGBT slang template at the foot of the article too? Lugnuts (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – An article that is well written – well sourced – properly in-line cited – informative - Has been the subject of numerous Scholarly works, as noted here [14]] and been around for almost 5 years is now being considered for AFD. Have I missed something. ShoesssS Talk 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you've missed that this is a dictionary entry masquerading as an encyclopedia article. "Faggot" means "homosexual"; someone looking up "faggot" in an encyclopedia -- someone who wants to know what a faggot is, and how they come to exist, and how many there might be, and what laws might affect them -- should be looking at the "homosexual" article. Powers T 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faggot != homosexual != gay. They are clearly different things with different usages and different histories. They no more mean the same than catholic == christian == zealot. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's the case, why is there no encyclopedic information here on faggots who are not homosexuals? (Or, if you mean to say that faggots are a strict subset of homosexuals, then on what makes faggot-homosexuals different than non-faggot homosexuals.) Instead, the article talks about the word. I would welcome an article on the concept of a faggot, if it is indeed significantly different from the concept of a homosexual person. Powers T 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Homosexuals rarely identify as "faggots". But bigots often identify homosexuals as "faggots". Therefore the article on homosexuality isn't compatible with an article on "faggot" for merger or redirect (perhaps on Conservapedia, but not here where NPOV rules) and we can happily have both articles since they don't address the same subject other than in the minds of bigots. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So some people don't use the word, but the people who do use the word, use it to mean exactly the same thing as the word "homosexual". That's a textbook example of a synonym. Powers T 21:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – No I didn't miss your implications. What I am saying is that at least several hundred scholars, as noted in my link above, thought enough of the term to actually write books – papers and essays about it, not just relying on the dictionary term. I believe an encylopedia is for. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the usage of a perjorative is not the same as the usage of the medical term is not the same as the usage of the common term. The history of a perjorative is not the same as the history of the medical term is not the same as the history of the common term. And a redirect from "faggot" to "homosexual" is an insult, whilst an article about the term "faggot" is what encyclopedias are for. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, articles about words are what dictionaries are for. That's why we don't have an article called Octopus (word). Powers T 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've mistaken the disambiguation addition of "(slang)" for a definition in and of itself. The use of this word has a specific political history beyond what a dictionary would and should give. That's where an encyclopedia steps forward. Just because the article is about the usage of a word that is slang doesn't make it a dicdef article. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Correct, what makes it a dicdef article is that there is nothing here except usage, definition, and etymology. There is no encyclopedic information on the word, only dictionary information. Powers T 20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept is indicative of a particular homophobic attitude, and eliminating the article on it would be an attempt to deny information on it. Articles on the use and cultural implications of a word are encylopedic. DicDef only refers to minimal dictionary type information. The relevant policy is NOT CENSORED. DGG (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In one sense, every article is an extended definition, and every article is "about a word"; only those ideas that can be named by words will ever have articles. The dictionary definition policy is only about potential articles that can never be more than definitions. And this obviously is already more than a dictionary style definition, and already contains a good deal of historical, literary, and cultural material. The overextension of what the policy actually says is troubling, and I suggest that this be closed early. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is not just defenition it includes historical information and social impact of the use of the word, which is encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 21:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; while I strongly dislike the word and what it has come to mean in the modern day, the term has a pretty long history behind it and meant something completely different upon creation. NSR77 T 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fabulous Keep I just added four additional gay-oriented pop culture references to the article, including dialogue from The Boys in the Band and Midnight Cowboy. Like a certain N-word, this particular bit of the language is loaded with significant historic and sociological importance that lifts it beyond the dicdef domain. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nom's comment to first commenter leads me to believe this is a WP:POINTy nomination. JuJube (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-And no disrespect taken – The reason it comes to AFD is to discuss the merits of whether a piece does or does not deserve inclusion here at Wikipedia. An individual passionately expressing their opinion in a civil manner, either for or against, should never be considered as disruptive. ShoesssS Talk 15:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not every article about a word fails WP:DICDEF. Consider, for example, the featured article Thou. WP:DICDEF only says that articles must be more than a mere dictionary definition, it never says that articles about words are forbidden. If this article said "Faggot is a derogatory slang word for a gay man" and nothing else, it would fail WP:DICDEF and have to be either transwikied or deleted. But it says a great deal more than that and so is an encyclopedia article. —Angr 07:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly reasonable to have an article about this specific word as a social phenomenon. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 20/Births

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
July 20/Births (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an orphaned test article. No other articles of this sort exist. Duplicate of information on July 20 or indiscriminate information that is not/can not be listed on July 20.

Also nominating the following related articles:

July_20/Events1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July_20/Events2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July_20/Deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. It's possible that in 2005 this was an experiment at breaking up the existing article July 20 into its components. However, even at 34 megabytes, that July 20 article isn't all that cumbersome and splitting it up has proved unnecessary. Indeed, if any article shouldn't be broken up, the July 20 (or any other day) article would be an example of something that ain't broke and don't fix it. It's not a bad idea for someone to check to see if there's any birth, death, or event that got added to one of these lists and not to to the main article. Mandsford (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from other concerns, this name is also problematic because of its format: it fails the statement on Wikipedia:Naming conventions under the header "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles." As such, it's nto a likely target, so after ensuring that all this information is on the actual 20 July article. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hood Hop 2

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Hood Hop 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable unreleased album, sourced solely from the artist's MySpace page. A previous AFD resulted in a redirect to the artist's article, with the closing admin stating the redirect could be deleted if the album didn't surface. The album hasn't shown up and it should be deleted per WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Also of note, the redirect was reverted multiple times and hasn't been there since four days after the AfD closed. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandra Cocchi

[edit]
Alessandra Cocchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was speedied twice, once for A7 (no assertion of notability) and once for G12 (copyright infringement). For me, notability is still rather unclear, and the text is very similar to the subject's home page [15]. But I welcome other opinions. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, weakly. This probably has just barely enough assertions of importance not to be a speedy. But essentially, it says that there is an artist in Italy whose day job is a schoolteacher, and who has had a number of exhibitions. References to reliable sources would help. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. This is a faulty bot listing (the bot isn't faulty, but the listing is) - the article in question is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler. Further comments should be at that AfD discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Drake

[edit]
Alex Drake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Listing for AfD per WP:NFICT. Mikeblas (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an article about a principle character in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that it isn't notable because it "isn't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia article also link to this article. Article is well referenced, and should not have been nominated, this is just tying up AFD time.andi064 T . C 09:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - its the main character! Plus the series returns after christmas. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The principal character in an important series. That ought ot be enough justification, but it would be highly advisable to gind and add secondary references to her character and role in the plot from whatever published criticism there may already be. all such shows are discussed, though the sources are not always the ones we are used to using. DGG (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. This is a faulty bot listing (the bot isn't faulty, but the listing is) - the article in question is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler. Further comments should be at that AfD discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Cartwright

[edit]
Annie Cartwright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Listing for AfD per WP:NF. Mikeblas (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an article about a principle character in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that it isn't notable because it "isn't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia article also link to this article. Article is well referenced, and should not have been nominated, this is just tying up AFD time.andi064 T . C 09:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - for all reasons stated above. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A principal character in an important show. That's a sufficient criterion. I'd accept a merge, but only if the entire contents were merged,and could be maintained there. Organizing the material isn't what's important here; its keeping the material. Experience shows that such merged information often tends to get whittled down, and then the merged list of characters even gets nominated for deletion, sometimes for having insufficient content. Not saying it will necessarily happen here, but it does happen. DGG (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources. None. Since when do we keep non-stub articles that don't have reliable sources? Powers T 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Life_on_Mars_(TV_series)List of Life on Mars characters. Certainly worth a redirect, however there are two issues. First, as noted above, the lack of any reliable sources - one blog does not cut the mustard. Second, and more important (imo) there is no real world perspective.[1] The proposed guidelines on notabilty for fictional topics say that "individual character articles ... should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible".[2] The same article suggests a helpful question: "How does the reader's understanding of this topic suffer if this fictional element is ... only summarized in the main article?" Not at all, imo. Springnuts (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Life on Mars characters. The character has no "life" beyond the series and no useful sources to base the article upon. But in the list of characters, some of the information would be useful (albeit still lacking sources). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Procedural close. This is a faulty bot listing (the bot isn't faulty, but the listing is) - the article in question is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler. Further comments should be at that AfD discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Skelton

[edit]
Chris Skelton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Listing for AfD per WP:NFICT. Mikeblas (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an article about a principle character in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that it isn't notable because it "isn't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia article also link to this article. Article is well referenced, and should not have been nominated, this is just tying up AFD time.

Strong keep - I agree with everything the above user has said. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danyel T. Reiche

[edit]
Danyel T. Reiche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability under WP:ACADEMIC. I am not an expert, however, so I'm leaving it to the wider community to discuss. Note that it was created by a new account, so take that into consideration, and remember not to bite! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the Wuppertal p., he's still an assistant professor. They call him professor at the top as a courtesy title--but look lower down at "Lehraufträge" (teaching positions)-- he was appointed Asst Prof. at AUB in 2008. I changed my !vote to Weak Keep upon confirming it. DGG (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. This is a faulty bot listing (the bot isn't faulty, but the listing is) - the article in question is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler. Further comments should be at that AfD discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Hunt

[edit]
Gene Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Mikeblas (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an article about a principle character in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that it isn't notable because it "isn't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia article also link to this article. Article is well referenced, and should not have been nominated, this is just tying up AFD time.andi064 T . C 09:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Loads of media publications have Gene Hunt in it, everyone knows of the actor Philip Glenister who plays the character, the amount of books, media publications and TV he has been on clearly shows its notable. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that a list with potentially over 100,000 entries is not useful.  Sandstein  23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Korean War veterans

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

DELETE - This article was removed from deletion by Stwalkerster on 27 November 2008 for reasons that are unexplained. Previously, all lists of veterans (e.g., List of World War II veterans, List of Spanish American War veterans, List of World War I veterans, etc.) were deleted as they are cumbersome, cannot be complete, and serve no useful purpose when the category tag is properly used. Please support this article's second deletion. Spacini (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, how can you say this serves no useful purpose? You people are weird. Anyway it might be complete but it's not cumbersome at the moment. Perhaps it should be more like People of the Spanish Civil War but I like the notes. Juzhong (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there like some kind of trick to using the category tag? Maybe you can use google to get the first lines of the articles, is that what you mean by "properly used"? Juzhong (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lists such as this do not serve a useful purpose in Wikipedia; they provide no criticism, context, or analysis. As I noted, all other such lists were deleted many months ago. This list was resurrected with no explanations provided as to why it was restored. Your example of the People of the Spanish Civil War category is an excellent example. People of the Korean War would be an excellent alternative to this list. Spacini (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This provides context, because tells me who the fuck they were and what they did during the war, exactly what a category doesn't do. You people have a bizarre definition of "useful". Juzhong (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that the list serves no useful purpose. And lest anybody accuse me of knocking the flag, let me say that this is certainly not a list to honor Korean War veterans. Why is Neil Armstrong on here, but his fellow Ohioan David Abernathy [16] would not be welcome here, despite a greater sacrifice? Because this is a "List of Korean War veterans who have Wikipedia articles written about them", and that is indeed covered by a category. Contribute to your local honor guard. Visit a vet at a nursing home or a VA hospital. Attend a ceremony and thank the veterans who are recognized there. We can acknowledge our veterans in ways other than making a Wikipedia list of celebrities. Mandsford (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think some people might want to avoid articles like Neil Armstrong's in favor of those who are notable for what they did during the war? Juzhong (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm misunderstanding the question, please let me know. My answer would be "no" -- the list doesn't have information for people to decide whether Neil Armstrong is more notable for what he did during the war than any other person on the list; nor should it ever be asserted that Neil Armstrong is better than "this veteran", or not as good as "that veteran". However, the purpose of the list is to show "notable" persons who served in Korea, as opposed to hundreds of thousands of regular people who served in Korea. I understand the point about categories being difficult to search; and I'll admit that the it-would-work-better-as-a-category argument is one of the more idiotic arguments against a list (as if we had to choose between one or the other!). That being said, however, this is nothing more than an exclusive, members only, People magazine list of certain persons who went to Korea and who got the chance to come home and prosper in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. While both this list and a category can list blue-links who were in Korea during 1950-53, the category states, facts-only, no judgment, no point-of-view, that the persons within it also happen to have served in Korea War. Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, some people on the list just happened to go Korea and had the chance to come home and prosper, and then some people are notable have wikipedia articles for what they did during the war. E.g. Léo Major, Zhang Taofang, No Kum-Sok. Anyway never mind, I can see from the votes below that this place is just a stupidity farm. Juzhong (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wouldn't go so far as to say that this article was fresh produce from the stupidity farm. It's just that nobody at the market is buying it. Mandsford (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, by trying to argue and innocently making false and disprovable statements you actually gave me the impression it might be worth talking to you. Juzhong (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I enjoy reading your comments. You're getting better at sarcasm. Keep practicing. Mandsford (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep taunting, dirtbag. Juzhong (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are going to delete this list. Instead you will present me with a long list of celebrities whose names I don't recognize. I will have no way of finding people who actually had a significant role in the war except by going through every single one (that google idea doesn't work). I am pondering the best response to this, and I don't think it will involve trying to work within the system. Juzhong (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always userfy the article, make any improvements that you see fit, and then bring it back up. As far as narrowing a list down from all participants to major participants, there are a lot of books about the Korean War, whether in a public library or online at Google books. In some cases, a book is quicker to search than the Internet. I was editing a list of the officers executed after Stauffenberg's 1944 assassination attempt, and borrowing Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich saved a lot of time. Mandsford (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naraio

[edit]
Naraio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know, how to add notability for open source product. If possible please add notability or provide some guidelines. Meanwhile I added "infobox" in Naraio wiki.

WITHOUT ANY REASON U REMOVED THE PAGE

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

The result was Procedural close. This is a faulty bot listing (the bot isn't faulty, but the listing is) - the article in question is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler. Further comments should be at that AfD discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Dobbs

[edit]
Phyllis Dobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Listing for AfD per WP:NFICT. Mikeblas (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - She is a crucial character in Life on Mars. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. This is an article about a principle character in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that it isn't notable because it "isn't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia article also link to this article. Article is well referenced, and should not have been nominated. (Quentin X (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge: to show's article. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. This is a faulty bot listing (the bot isn't faulty, but the listing is) - the article in question is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler. Further comments should be at that AfD discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Carling

[edit]
Ray Carling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Listing for AfD per WP:FICT. Mikeblas (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an article about a principle character in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that it isn't notable because it "isn't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia article also link to this article. Article is well referenced, and should not have been nominated, this is just tying up AFD time.andi064 T . C 09:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - principle character and well referenced, along with all the reasons stated above. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and then redirect to List_of_Zoids#R Black Kite 00:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redler

[edit]
Redler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Over two hundred exist according to the lead in most of these. They really can't be covered outside of "This is robotic *animal* with *signature feature*." TTN (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. This is a faulty bot listing (the bot isn't faulty, but the listing is) - the article in question is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler. Further comments should be at that AfD discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Granger

[edit]
Sharon Granger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Listing for AfD per WP:NFICT. Mikeblas (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an article about a principle character in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that it isn't notable because it "isn't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia article also link to this article. Article is well referenced, and should not have been nominated, this is just tying up AFD time.andi064 T . C 09:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - principle character, and other reasons stated above. The series returns after Christmas, its not worth deleting because new information will be added about the character. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In addition to the comments above: the deletion policy says deletion should not be performed when an article's problem can be dealt with by editing. You said there's no sources in the article, but there's no evidence you made an attempt to find any before you nominated the page. - Mgm|(talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doesn't appear to be a suitable redirect after deletion, feel free to create one if I'm mistaken Black Kite 00:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsugumi Takakura

[edit]
Tsugumi Takakura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete SRW has a track record for cookie-cutter superficial characters. No coverage in reliable, independent sources insofar as I can tell. People are welcome to merge/redirect/listify this, but i don't see a reason for it to be a stand-alone article. Protonk (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a perfectly plausible search term. Why not do that? It's impossible to merge or listify something that gets deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm expressing my view that the article doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. I also understand that the closing admin may chose to redirect this article or direct that it be merged to a redirect target. Insofar as the admin would understand that deletion and merging are usually incompatible, I am offering those views. I don't mean "delete" then merge. I mean, this page could be deleted (As this is AfD and it fails WP:N) but that if we choose to redirect my vote shouldn't be interpreted as contraverting that. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we've been there before.--Boffob (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge anything useful after cutting down severely. Yes, we've been there before, I am still of the opinion that this makes for a perfect redirect name/plausible search term. Any merging (after severely cutting extranuous plot info can be done afterwards, no deletion required). - Mgm|(talk) 21:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just waiting for the nominator, or anyone else who knows/cares about Super Robot Wars to boldly merge or redirect all these articles instead of going through a slow nominating process (for deletion/redirect/merge). Other manga (InuYasha comes to mind) or game projects started doing the same a while ago. --Boffob (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge I'm fairly inclusionist, but there is very little in here that we couldn't easily merge into the main article or a list of characters. In fact, I will volunteer to do it myself, just tell me where to move it. Tealwisp (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Movie Rewards

[edit]
Disney Movie Rewards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to establish why this scheme is notable. Page reads like an advert for Disney. And as per this discussion on WT:FILM Lugnuts (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. G6, non-controversial housekeeping. Mgm|(talk) 20:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Reichstadt (disambiguation)

[edit]
Duke of Reichstadt (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disambiguation provided by this page is not needed because it only disambiguates two articles. Napoleon II of France is clearly the primary subject and Duke of Reichstadt currently redirects there. A hatnote has been placed at Napoleon II of France to facilitate disambiguation with Petar Stojanović's operetta. Noca2plus (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The sources that exist appear to be trivial at best, trivial local coverage and primary sources do not combine to show notability. That said, there were enough dissenting views that I'll be happy to userify this article upon request, if anyone thinks it can be developed into a properly sourced article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1

[edit]
Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1 article fails to establish notability for a local unit of a non-commercial organization. It does not show why this unit is unique out of 52,000 Boy Scout troops in the U.S.

Hawk Mountain Camp is a property managed and used by Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1 and fails the same standards. —— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete and salt, if possible merge any notable content into appropriate council or state article. These articles will continue to be problematic and contentious, and their existence runs counter to the dozens of nn local articles that have already been deleted over Wiki history. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Experience has shown that very few Scout Troops or camps are notable enough for their own article. "One of the oldest", "the only troop" in community X, etc. do not cut it. The oldest in New York State might if it had continuous existence since foundation. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that essay. Yes, topics that are obscure or specialized can be notable, but they are subject to the same standards as every other article. I would not have nominated these articles if I thought that they were redeemable in establishing notability. The appropriate place for these articles is at ScoutWiki. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area." Deor (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am trying to expand this article to include not just Troop 88 (Oreland 1), but all four Scout troops that served the small community of Oreland for the past 90+ years. I am proposing to at least change the name of the article to "Oreland Boy Scouts" or something along those lines. It meets the notability standards- which are subject to broad interpretation. And I feel that to limit the debate between a few wiki-zealots and to ignore the hundreds if not thousands who have read the page since it was posted and think it is fine, would be a grave error. The in-grown hair on my ass can meet wikipedia's notability standard... C'mon here, let's work through this, instead of making it your little mission to shape wikipedia to your narrow-minded standards. Also, why don't the other two "local units" have this same tag on them? And if you don't want local units on wikipedia, why don't you strictly forbid them? And again, I'll beat the dead horse, User:VincentPace put together a sound argument the last time we were here and the article survived for over a year. Why don't you make a clear set of standards (like the one for camps- which Hawk Mountain Camp meets) for local units? You could start by only allowing units who are 90+ years old, who have continuously been chartered, who have famous alumni, have contributed to the scouting movement, etc.. This seems more CONstructive rather than DEstructive. Which in the end, is what wikipedia is all about. I hated to sound all serious, but sometimes I can have this level-headed adult-like steak in me. Jmpenzone (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The project guideline is at WP:SCOUTMOS#Non-national articles. You will note that it links to the applicable Wikipedia guidelines and adds some discussion on related issues. We don't have special notability guidelines for Scouting since the project operates within the greater Wikipedia; we are not a walled garden. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You really didn't address the main idea of my concern/argument. If you don't want local units, just say you don't want them. The way all these "guidelines" are written anybody can reasonably argue that their troop is notable. They are, quite frankly, a joke. That is the trouble with a "top-down approach". It allows persons like yourself to "refer to this" or "read this thing that I wrote", instead of actually addressing my input and looking at this debate as a singular issue. I don't give a crap about your self-written guidelines! Address the issue at hand!!!! You are deflecting the argument and simply redirecting everything I say to a "rule" that you had a hand in writing. I know this game, I do it for a living- I'm a government regulator. And people hate it when us regulators just quote regulation and code and tell people to do it. I'm not like that and I do not ever intend on being like that. I like to sit down with the person(s) and listen to their problem and come up with a solution we can both live with. In the end, that's all anyone wants- to come to a mutual agreement that all can live with. Please, address my concerns and don't deflect the issue to some stupid rule or guideline. Hear me out.

Why don't you write about your former and/or current unit? We could compare now notable these units are. That way there you have something to compare our page with. I understand you are either doing this for one of two reasons: you really don't want local units on wikipedia (which a personal preference) or you are trying to make this article better by challenging the author and editors to make this article more notable. I honest assumption on your intention is the latter reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmpenzone (talk • contribs)

To answer your last question: I have been a member of two packs, nine troops, one post and one crew; none are notable outside of their community. This is getting way off the subject of this article. Since you are directly addressing me, please take it to my talk page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no assertion of notability. As per WP:ORG the troop does not demonstrate sufficient notability via the WP:N guidelines to justify inclusion. Unless some additional information about the NOTABILITY of the troop is provided, the article should be deleted. It could have all the reliable sources in the world that mention the existance, but verifiability of the existance of the troop does not by itself confer notability. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG. Obvious case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WOW!!!! The deletionists return. You guys really have it in for any content you don't like. I'll move it to Scoutwiki. (Where I know you think it belongs, right.) Hope you're happy FJB's!!!!Jmpenzone (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would just remind all users to please assume good faith and do not resort to personal attacks. Theseeker4 (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I argued the last time this was up for deletion, I believe that this article is a keeper. The notability standards for an organization state that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Oreland Troop 1 has had various media coverage since its inception in local newspapers, scouting media, and, since it began operating Hawk Mountain Camp, in the newspapers of the area of the camp. This standard does not call for national or international coverage, but coverage in "reliable, independent secondary sources", as are all those I mentioned. The newspaper group that has provided the most coverage of Oreland Troop 1 covers all of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, which means that the coverage can be considered at least regional. This coverage is not trivial; it notes the various achievements of the troop over its long existence, some of which is already covered by the article. I would argue that the real issue with the article is its lack of citations to these sources.

    Furthermore, I take issue with getting hung up on whether this is of importance only at a local or regional level. If that is truly a viable standard for judging Wikipedia articles, we can start by deleting all the articles covering small geographic regions, as they clearly fall afoul of the same rule.

    Oreland Troop 1 has had a storied history as one of the longest-operating troops in the nation, one of only a small handful to own and run its own camp, and has an important pillar of the community in which it's found. In addition to meeting the substantive requirements of Wikipedia's guidelines, it clearly has an interesting story to be told and is quite worthy of a Wikipedia page, as the recent ongoing edits continues to demonstrate.Vincent Pace (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - To my knowledge this is the first time the article has been at AfD. There was a merge that failed in 2007. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Talbot

[edit]
Michael Talbot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to be a notable author and I judge him to fail WP:BIO. His books made reference to a number of notable figures and subjects, but he himself was not famous outside of the small parochial group of New Age enthusiasts. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as author of notable book Holographic Universe (see its article). FWIW, I recognized the name of the book, but not his name. Matchups 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:N, WP:V and WP:HEY. Easily meets notability requirements. Google books shows Talbot cited in hundreds of books. Some narrowing of the search was needed because there's another author by that name, so that search includes the term "holographic" from the title of his most well known book. That may have caused some additional citations to be omitted from the total. The article obviously needs work to bring in sources, but that's not a criteria for deletion when the topic is sufficiently notable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The summaries of Talbot's works and philosophy within the article appear to be original research based upon his published works. While evidence is given (above) that he is cited in other works, I feel this only supports the notability of his published work, and does very little to support the need for a separate page biographing the author. I'd need specific instances of resources that suggest otherwise, not just a ghit count; and I'd further expect the article to be written based primarily upon such sources. -Verdatum (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors, and a NYT obit [18] which are good enough for me. There are a few other results at Google News which might be useful: [19]. Zagalejo^^^ 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, author of notable book and there's sufficient material to sustain a separate article. His work is widely cited and he's listed in Gale's Contemporary Authors, and he's got a NYT obit. Those reasons combined are more than enough to keep. - Mgm|(talk) 20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Michael Talbot.  Sandstein  23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Holographic Universe

[edit]
The Holographic Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BK. Not a notable book. Attempt by a marginal writer who is fairly ignorant of science to make some pseudoscientific claims, but the book has not engendered the press or the publicity needed for a Wikipedia article. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As of today, this is #1 on the Amazon Metaphysics best-seller list. According to Amazon, it has been reviewed by Library Journal and is cited in 100 other books. The 180,000 ghits should be taken with a grain of salt, as many are for the phrase and not the book, but even adding the name of the author preserves over 27K of them. Disclaimer: this doesn't mean I think he's right
Comment - does it make sense to merge this with the Michael Talbot deletion discussion? Matchups
Nah, that just gets complicated. -Verdatum (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P. M. H. Atwater

[edit]
P. M. H. Atwater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable author. Fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here's one news article which should count: [20]. Her book Beyond the Light was also reviewed in Library Journal, Publisher's Weekly, and Booklist (although I can only see the abstracts at ProQuest.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pioneering researcher in the field of near death experiences. (While it's possible to discount any paranormal explanations for these experiences, the experiences themselves are investigated and documented by scientists, so it's clearly a valid field to be pioneering in.) Her work is referenced in The Lancet according to this page. - Mgm|(talk) 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to P. M. H. Atwater.  Sandstein  23:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Memory

[edit]
Future Memory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable book. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have already added the content of this article to author P. M. H. Atwater's article. That does not preclude someone else from expanding this article and making the case that the book is notable enough for a separate article. --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Sue Larson

[edit]
Cynthia Sue Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Article was started as a soapbox by the author. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality shift.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SYNTH. The article notes that "the term is marginally used", asnd it is not at all clear that there is a common understanding what "reality shift" means.  Sandstein  23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality shift

[edit]
Reality shift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essentially, this article is an original synthesis of disparate material. Some people believe in "reality shifts", but, as a concept, they are not consistent in their beliefs. There are no independent, reliable sources which provide a summative definition let alone a coherent exposition that we can follow into an encyclopedic article. We have a number of New Age proponents advocating for "reality shifts", but most of their ideas can be covered on their own respective pages. Having a single page devoted to a subject that no one can agree upon is essentially Wikipedia inventing a new subject. That's not what an encyclopedia is for.

The article was stared as a soapbox for Cynthia Sue Larson who uses the term herself, but has not received the recognition of independent commentators required to develop an independent page. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Sue Larson.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GIS and database development

[edit]
GIS and database development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for posting abstracts or papers. Looks like most of this content is synthesized from the see also links in any case, and is thus redundant. roux   16:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pilar Cazares

[edit]
Pilar Cazares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, proficient poker player but fails to meet WP:BIO. Closing per WP:SNOW among registered contributors. Deiz talk 01:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Henderson

[edit]
Zach Henderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Removed prod. Non-notable poker player who fails to meet WP:N. He has only entered a single tournament and finished 11th in it. The article claims he is ranked 11th in the world but this is a fallacy as he has only competed in the one tournament and it wasn't even one of the majors. I believe this is a likely self-bio. Djsasso (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • d per nom. If we could accurately describe what it is about the style of all these self-bio pages that jumps right out at you when you see them, we could make it a CSD and save ourselves a lot of time. --fvw* 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous to claim that a World Series of Poker tournament is a "non-major" and just goes to show the lack of knowledge of the party trying to have this particular article deleted. As a professional poker player, I think it's absurd to call Zach6668 anything other than notable. Just because he is mostly a cash game player does not mean he isn't entirely relevant in the poker community. Removing this because of an ignorant reader's lack of knowledge about a significant entity in the poker world goes in direct opposition to the point of Wikipedia; namely to educate and inform about people or things of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:72.187.216.13 (talk • contribs)

There are different levels of events, the World Series of Poker is a major group of tournaments, but not all of the events in the World Series are of the same notability level. For example in the World Series, the major events would be the World Championship events and the Main Event. Players have to meet WP:V and WP:NOTE to qualify for an article, he does neither. -Djsasso (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to be more specific to poker he fails Poker player notability guidelines. -Djsasso (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's funny that you would use his popularity amongst the people who look up to him as a reason AGAINST his inclusion here. Of course there's an effort to keep this here. Zach Henderson has inspired and helped many of them. Zach Henderson is only not well-known to those outside of the poker universe; those who only casually follow televised tournaments. It's like saying that Andre Johnson isn't a relevant NFL player because the Texans aren't ever on TV. Zach Henderson is the Andre Johnson of poker.
  • Aside from the obvious notability that Zach enjoys from being the eleventh best limit hold'em player in the world, can we all agree that he's even more famous now, and certainly more notable, due to the wide-reaching impact this talk back has had on everyone? Now that he has influenced a fan-base beyond the poker players who idolized him so, exclusion from Wikipedia can only be attributed to a 1) ESPN-driven bias against limit hold'em players and/or 2) the anti-Canadianism of the parties attempting to censor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.216.13 (talk • contribs)
To be on wikipedia you do not have to be famous, you have to be notable. Hundreds of these deletion discussions go on every day, the fact his article is being deleted is not something out of the ordinary. Secondly atleast three of the people who voted delete above, including myself are Canadian. So its hardly Anti-Canadianism. -Djsasso (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might note that the word "notability" was used once and "notable" was used once in my previous statement. In any case, I find it hard to believe that Chris Crocker, the kid who screamed to leave Britney alone, is the kind of notability that you strive to see included during your run as Wikipedia Nazi, yet, there he is. It seems to me more like you had your feelings hurt and have decided to make this ridiculous campaign your week's mission. Also, with that level of insecurity, it is not surprising to me that you're a self-loathing Canadian and, thus, anti-Canadian. Some of us really appreciate our neighbors to the north. LEAVE ZACH ALONE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.216.13 (talk • contribs)
I might note that you edited your comment to say that after I posted... -Djsasso (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no record of him performing that edit.68.215.177.160 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting from what I'd assume a reliable media source: "I host a North American Wide Poker Radio Show on Sirius Satellite Radio, Channel 98, called the Hardcore Poker Show. I have conferred with Zach Henderson several times on poker related questions, and value his opinions and skillsets as a limit poker expert. To suggest that either his accomplishments or his knowledege are not relevant is simply inaccurate. I would have Zach Henderson as a guest on our show at any time, and our guest list is a who's who of the poker world. With no offense intended, I would suggest that deleting an entry on a poker player would require the expertise of those in the poker world. While I am in no way in a position to discuss the merits of a mathematicians accomplishments in the world of math, I certainly would expect the same courtesy be extended to those of us that make our living in the poker world." -Chris Tessaro, Host, The Hardcore Poker Show. 68.215.177.160 (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And maybe eventually one of you guys will read WP:Reliable sources and see that you need reliable published sources in things like magazines and news papers etc. This isn't a job, references from fellow poker people don't get you an article. -Djsasso (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ladies and Gentleman - I truly respect your opinion and your participation in Wikipedia. However, like any formal organization - group - club - corporation - and so on - and so on, there are specific rules - policies and guidelines, that any and all groups must adhere to, to be considered a respectable and trustworthy organization. One of the most important, with regards to Wikipedia, and again most legitimate organizations , is the adherence to their specific policies and guidelines. With regards to Wikipedia, a set of policies and guidelines have been establishe. One of the most important policies are the rules that establish Wikipedia Notability and Consensus regarding inclusion here at Wikipedia. Sorry to say at this time, and I hope in the future that he does, Mr. Henderson does not meet the qualifications of inclusion by being covered by 3rd party - creditable - reliable and verifiable sources. If you can provide these requirements, I am more than happy to have Zach be able to point to his inclusion here. I hope I explained the reasons behind the current debate and hope more for your continued participation in Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 00:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following has been transcluded from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Zach Henderson:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=104830

No other sources have written about him? His status has stretched from North America to Europe, as the British tournament tracking site "The Hendon Mob" has an entry for him. I think that is the solid proof that Zach is indeed a legit poker star and his name is simply being dragged through the mud right now for no apparent reason.

With all of the false articles on Wikipedia for someone to attack, how can you decide that this one doesn't fit the billing when infact it IS a REAL person who has REAL accomplishments? Whoever is challenging this is not only doing a disservice to Wikipedia, but a disservice to poker players around the world.

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King1305 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately that is just a listing, he needs to have articles written about him not just listings. See WP:RS. -Djsasso (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Kirkey

[edit]
Barry Kirkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Despite being mentioned in a book once, this for me does not constitute notability --fvw* 16:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 3 Network

[edit]
Channel 3 Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Internet video "network", with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Taking to AfD instead of prod because "parent" is at AfD. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian's.) If the parent article is kept, we may want to redirect this there instead of deleting. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Cappiello, Non è un mistero (Lorenzo Cappiello (EP), Non è un mistero, Lorenzo (CD), No es ningún misterio

[edit]
Lorenzo Cappiello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vanity, no google references aside from the blog and the information listed on the pages is questionable. --fvw* 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Google.it brings up a fair number of Lorenzo Cappiello hits, but they don't seem to be relevant. If the songs were going Gold and Platinum over the past year, they'd be mentioned online.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite 23:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Groove (band)

[edit]
The Groove (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be non-notable YouTube band. Band appears to have been deleted at least twice before as The Grooves (Band) and The Groove (Group) based on the talk page history of the user. Also note deletions of The Groove Holiday (Film) and Groove Studios, as well as Rosalyn Ross, one of the members of this group. Also included in this AfD:

roux   16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Speedy close - article was just nominated on Nov. 28 and closed yesterday. DRV is that way Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Unnikrishnan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sandeep Unnikrishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Died in the recent attacks in India. Not notable on his own. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an AFD discussion on this article and the notice was removed just yesterday. Would you mind removing the Afd that you have just put and let people expand the article. Indoresearch (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But of course.... WITHDRAWN GtstrickyTalk or C 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of European football players who play outside Europe

[edit]
List of European football players who play outside Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Consensus is that lists of footballers from nation X playing in nation Y are not-notable - see this AfD and this AfD for recent examples. The relevant categories contained within Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality should suffice. GiantSnowman 15:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
List of Mexican footballers currently playing outside Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dutch players in England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

GiantSnowman 15:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Champika Liyanaarachchi

[edit]
Champika Liyanaarachchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Cited source mentions her in passing (as the target of a threat), most of information in article isn't supported. Creator was indef blocked by myself for disruptive editing - including possible copyvios. Tan | 39 15:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, notable. The lady seems indeed to be the editor of said newspaper [34]. The newspaper is one of the major newspapers in Sri Lanka, as such it is notable. I do not now, what "editor" means in the Sri Lankan context, but if it means the same as in the West, she can probably claim notability derived from the newspaper she is the editor of. Also consider WP:BIAS when judging the notability of persons from small countries. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arjen Bonera

[edit]
Arjen Bonera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find no sources for this person outside of Wikipedia; two Dutch editors have also voiced concern on the article's talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My grandfather was Dutch and he used to tell me of Bonera. Although he seems to be little known, my grandfather was a real fan of Bonera for his pace and guile. Of course this is not strong evidence, but I promise that deletion of this article would be unjustified. Perhaps we can somehow contact Arjen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.123.70 (talk • contribs)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for ... any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. (from WP:V, one of Wikipedia's core policies). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn. Mgm|(talk) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andocs

[edit]
Andocs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page has not been touched by an actual user (not a bot) since [35], and it is not a notable, and has no history to note of. HairyPerry 15:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Ham United F.C. timeline

[edit]
West Ham United F.C. timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a wholly unnecessary fork of the much more comprehensive (and easier to read) History of West Ham United F.C., which already covers all the major events in the club's history. Additionally, the club's managers are covered at West Ham United F.C.#Managers, so there is no need for this article ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Ultima II.  Sandstein  23:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minax (Ultima)

[edit]
Minax (Ultima) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Plot summary, and looking around there doesn't seem to be any information for WP:N. Last edit to the article was July 30. Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ultima II (just create a plot heading and dump what's here underneath) and redirect. Stripping out the pre-amble and trivia would result in a basic plot outline for Ultima II, I'll tweak it if that's the result of the AFD. Someoneanother 01:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odin's Court

[edit]
Odin's Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Though there are numerous sources listed, the only sources with non-trivial coverage do not appear to meet reliable sources guidelines (i.e., non-notable music website). OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note to Mr. HairyPerry that an article is only subject for deletion if it is utterly unsalvageable. I'm not entirely sure that the band meets the applicable standard, but I am sure that "it needs a rewrite" is not grounds for deletion. We can have all the AfDs we want about "poorly written" and each will be closed with prejudice. Still, gnews reports no obvious hits that I can find which are not certainly trivial. Though there is yet research to be done, I've yet to find specific grounds for inclusion. 74.224.47.231 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, more of a question. Two notable musicians, Tom S. Englund of Evergrey and Tony Kakko of Sonata Arctica do guest work on this album. This does not technically qualify them per criterion 6, though it might be of consideration in itself. My opinion at this point, though, is that while the band may be on the brink of notability, it's just there just yet. When they headline a major tour or release a second album which is not self-financed (albums up to Deathanity were self-financed according to the RockTimes.de reference in the article), they may squeeze past WP:BAND, but for now, I don't have a good reason to object to deletion. --Same fellow as above, 74.224.47.231 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by Orangemike. Lenticel (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Podgurski

[edit]
Klaus Podgurski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. The article claims that he has released several solo albums, but allmusic doesn't know him. No sources are given. Google shows only wiki mirrors. A hoax? B. Wolterding (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating this apparent duplicate:

--B. Wolterding (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Unleashed

[edit]
Guitar Unleashed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spam-looking, blatant advertisement-looking article with no reliable sources about non-notable software. "Features" are copyvio from http://www.hifiunleashed.com/guitarunleashed.php GreyCat (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this statement I'm going along with a speedy delete. We aren't here to build community for a new product. Mangoe (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Looks like a case of promotion. I've put a welcome on the creator's talk page which will hopefully help out when/if this product becomes notable in the future. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the word "we" in that post was a tip off to some major COI. So, yeah. Blatant advertising. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal F.C. Reserves seasons

[edit]
Arsenal F.C. Reserves seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is completely unsourced. Furthermore, it also seems to lie outside the accepted criteria for notability for subjects in this genre. – PeeJay 11:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arsenal F.C. Academy seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Benjamin

[edit]
Warren Benjamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. --VS talk 11:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batman modern continuity

[edit]
Batman modern continuity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is essentially a bibliography of Batman trade paperbacks that fit into the "modern continuity". Aside from the fact that not all of them do ("Year Two" was removed from continuity a while back), it's wholly focused on a fictional chronology that is not well-defined and provides no secondary sources to establish the nobility of this organization scheme. Thus original research plays a primary factor in determing which books belong here. It's very much a subjective list of "canon" issue collections that has no place on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, modern continuity is such that anything before the One Year Later mark might not count anymore anyway (most of it does count, but not all of it). What does or doesn't count now is uncited OR. Also, I see no justification for some of the ordering that occurs. Year One, Two & Three are obvious, but why is the Batman Chronicles Special "The Gauntlet" placed where it is? There's probably a reason but it's probably an OR one. And that's only looking at the Batman section. I didn't even look at the rest of the Bat-Family stuff Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the points raised by WesleyDodds and Duggy 1138. The primary problem is that the organization of this bibliography is original research as evidenced by the fact that it contains no citations. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Armstrong

[edit]
Tony Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. --VS talk 11:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediatheek

[edit]
Mediatheek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is unsourced and unverified. The references that are given appear to not be fully thought through. The article may refer to a neologism, perhaps something made up in school one day. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little experimentation with babelfish suggests that these are just French/Dutch translations of media center, that is, library. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, is just a foreign word for something we already have word for. Mediathek in German = Multimedia centre/library/lab. The place you go in universities to watch foreign language TV or borrow obscure 1970's films.Yobmod (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. The only comments indicating "keep" seem to argue against the principle of the nomination, and is not rooted in policy. Malinaccier (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Bennell

[edit]
Jamie Bennell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. --VS talk 11:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. As noted, this player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and even WP:N is shaky, in most articles that mention him, he is merely mentioned briefly or in the context of other places, as one might expect for the 51st pick in the draft. I considered carefully the Keep rationales by User:Hughesdarren and User:Allied45, but eventually assigned them lesser weight due to their rebuttal and the fact that they did not appear to be solidly grounded in policy. That does not mean of course, that the article should not be recreated if he ever gets a game, or if more substantial third-party coverage surfaces.

As always with notability cases, I am happy to userify if someone wants to keep a backup copy of the article around just in case either of the two circumstances above come to pass. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Jetta

[edit]
Neville Jetta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. --VS talk 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hill (Australian footballer)

[edit]
Stephen Hill (Australian footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was prodded (incorrectly on the second occasion) - Appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. --VS talk 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (I was the second, policy violating, PRODder). There is absolutely no guarantee that the subject will ever meet WP:ATHLETE. While the article is referenced, one of those articles is not independent, being the official Australian Football League site and the other two are arguably linked to the annual drama around the AFL draft and not of any lasting significance. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. How many news articles do you need? Basic notability criteria (A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject) trumps WP:Athlete. The-Pope (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The article is updated with more info... Why delete? Ruennsheng (Talk) 13:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per VS - WP:Athlete not met if he is not fully professional ... This criterion trumps basic notability criteria if that criteria are being applied to that person's sporting career - refs in the paper to sporting achievements need to be subject to the lens of WP:Athlete - in this case the refs are all about his sporting career, he is not notable for anything else. --Matilda talk 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: deletion creates a double standard if there are articles on US college athletes who are also at amateur level. Harro5 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Matilda. McWomble (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His career may be promising, but it could just as quickly fade into relative nothingness having never played at the highest level. Is Wikipedia full of hundreds of articles of failed draft picks from years gone by, no doubt all of whom received breathless coverage for a few days in footy columns? I'd guess "no", because they were never notable. I'd recommend we wait in this case as well Murtoa (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment so who's crystal balling now? The news articles exist NOW, not in the future. He's a #3 draft pick, not a 5th rounder. Read this to see what other people think WP:ATHLETE intends to mean... and generally they all disagree with Matilda's approach. The-Pope (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment I acknowledge the existence of current news articles on the subject. But there's hints for me of WP:NOT#NEWS. Footy-mad papers like the Herald-Sun go into a blather at this time of the year, because the draft gives a bit of footy news at a slow-footy time of year. And that leads to the trumpeting of a batch of new potential stars. Some, like Jack Watts (footballer) have attracted a deal of publicity, and he would be one where you would argue that if he didn't go on to become a big star it might actually be noteworthy. But I still think there's a reasonable yardstick provided by the wholesale absence of the heralded draft picks of years gone by who have gone on to make no AFL appearances. On that basis, why should this year's crop be hoisted above their claims? Or do you think devoted footy wikipedians will actually go through the backlog, pointing to the news articles at the time and resurrect their notability? I don't know whether the subject of this article will go on to be a notable AFL player, and neither do you. And when he does, I'll have no problems with his notability. But until then, I think it would be crystal balling to presume otherwise. Murtoa (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I concur with Murtoa's views - a few newspaper articles in a single month does not make notability in my view. I hope the young man succeeds in his sport and that he merits an article but at this stage nope in my view. I suggest the issue has been clouded by the plethora of articles - some of which are clearly not defensible. If someone could organise these debates into those who clearly do not meet our guidelines and those who might, this debate might become a whole lot more sensible and we could all dig our heels in less. I confess to not caring much about football but as mentioned elsewhere just because somebody makes the papers does not make them notable - articles in the media help to support notability but it doesn't have to work the other way around - we would have an awful of of articles on social wanna-bes otherwise: for example Richard Pratt's mistress has been filling the Sydney Morning Herald's column inches for years.--Matilda talk 05:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - Murtoa, I hear your concern about draft publicity. I live in hockey-mad Canada, where in the middle of the 2008-2009 NHL season, we not only know who are the top prospects for the 2009 draft, but the NHL's Central Scouting Bureau has long since released their preliminary ranking for the 2010 draft. But I don't think the absence of articles on previous draftees is necessarily what ought to be guiding us, in as much as consensus is ever-shifting and developing here. You're right — I don't know whether Stephen Hill or Jack Watts will go on to footy glory, just like I have no advance knowledge that John Tavares will be a star in the NHL, Tim Tebow in the NFL, or Greg Paulus in the NBA. But I do know that they all have had sufficient column inches and pixels devoted to their amateur careers that they are already notable, for their performance to date, for the resulting impact on their draft position, and soon enough for their entry into the pro ranks. That won't be the case for every junior hockey player or college ball player or regional footballer, but it will be each year for at least a few. Frankly, Matilda, you make a reasonable suggestion. The vast majority of these similar articles nominated today are lacking sources and, from a somewhat cursory search, I believe that it will not be possible to source many of them in a satisfactory manner. Others have already been sourced, and at least a couple of others appear that they could be. Part of the problem is that WP:ATHLETE appears to have turned into yet another third rail of Wikipedia, despite anyone's best efforts to the contrary. Similarly, it's always been easier to nominate an article for deletion than to search for sources, particularly since everyone has their own ideas about what constitutes notability (a general observation, VS, and not in any way a comment pointed toward you).
  • Keep Meets WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:V. -Djsasso (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1) The article is referenced with multiple secondary source materials, in which case he passes WP:BIO and WP:N — WP:ATHLETE is subservient to both of these, and definitely does not "trump" basic notability criteria. In fact, the introduction to the additional criteria of WP:BIO, where WP:ATHLETE resides, is quite specific in this regard. 2) I'm assuming that either the WAFL or the Under-18 Championships could be considered the highest amateur level of this sport — I don't claim to be an Aussie rules expert — in which case he would also pass WP:ATHLETE. The existence of a professional level of a sport does not automatically exclude amateurs in that same sport. If I'm incorrect about the nature of those competitions, my apologies, in which case see 1) above. 3) The requirement is that the sources be intellectually independent and independent of the subject, which the article on the AFL site satifies. 4) Draft drama and breathless coverage notwithstanding, notability is not temporary — if his prospects in his sport are such that he was such a high draft pick and did receive coverage in multiple sources as a result, then he's notable whether he's ultimately successful in a professional career or not. In fact, a high draft pick that fails to have a professional career is separately notable is their own weird way. In this regard, he's no different than high draft picks in football, hockey, American football, or basketball, where this same argument also happens on these pages.
    It might be enlightening for those commenting here to read through discussions 22 through 27 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 12, where a number of high MLS draftees were tagged for deletion. I cite these examples because WP:FOOTY is among the most slavish to the "x is a professional sport, therefore amateurs can't ever be notable" argument, and that argument was well-represented in these discussions. Regardless, those articles where proper sourcing could be found and included — Pat Phelan, Julius James, Patrick Nyarko, Sean Franklin, and Chance Myers — ended up being kept, while those lacking sourcing — Josh Lambo — were not. Mlaffs (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every year we have the same debates, and every year we come to the same conclusion that it's a lot simpler to keep the articles. He will be on the list for the whole of next season, making him one of only 44 players to be able to play for Fremantle next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This appears to pre-empt the outcome and is not helpful, particularly seeing that at least some of this year's articles are actually being deleted. "We" haven't necessarily come to the same conclusion this year. He may be on the list, but "every year" we see some of these players simply making no impact and reverting to relative obscurity. Murtoa (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Keep the article is well referenced. An athlete can be notable even if they do not play in a fully professional league if they have received enough coverage. Icewedge (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Jones

[edit]
Liam Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. --VS talk 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator did not provide any reason for deletion. Mgm|(talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batting pads

[edit]
Batting pads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This new article appears to perform the same function as the present article pads. I propose that the content be merged, and that this one be turned into a redirect. Further, it may be necessary to move the present article 'pads' to 'cricket pads', redirect 'pads' to 'pad', then add 'cricket pads' to 'pad', since the word 'pad' may refer to all manner of protective gear, as well as sanitary products and so on. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mali grad (Small castle) Kamnik

[edit]
Mali grad (Small castle) Kamnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable location; it's a slope, for jimbo's sake. Ironholds (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graft Architects

[edit]
Graft Architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not as blatant an advertisment as many articles I've seen, but it's still an advertisement. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petros Xanatos

[edit]
Petros Xanatos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#A7 (group) and WP:IAR Pedro :  Chat  10:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mukherjee of Konnagar

[edit]
Mukherjee of Konnagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable family. Unfortunately no CSD tag covers it; maybe we should just have a "patently non-notable, but no precise category" tag. Ironholds (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete under criteria G3. User that created the article is a sockpuppet of a banned user who is known to vandalize, create hoaxes and spam the encyclopedia. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran's Broadcasting Company (KBC)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kieran's Broadcasting Company (KBC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax article - Channel 360 on Sky is 4music. Reference provided does not even list the channel Blowdart | talk 09:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. The ultimate giveaway is that the article is written as if 2009 was in the past, and Grutness is also on target. I see no reason to waste anymore time on this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central NZ United Gust FC

[edit]
Central NZ United Gust FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined the speedy on this because I know jack about football. Apparently this article is a hoax. We can delete it here or any admin who knows about this mysterious sport played in places that aren't America can speedy this as blatant misinformation. Protonk (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 01:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Clemo

[edit]
Philip Clemo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined this speedy deletion candidate and chose to nominate it here instead. This appears to be a biography of an individual who does not meet our guidelines for inclusion (WP:BIO and the general notability guideline). It does not appear as though he is the source of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 00:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Rodriguez

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jessica Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a biography of a person, notable for only one thing, supposed friendship and Scientology "handler" of Katie Holmes. There are three references used on the page, one is a dead link, one is a FoxNews "slam piece" about Holmes being a zombie, and the third is an anti-Scientology website. In the external links, bare mention of Rodriguez is made, just more of the same "friend" or "minder". I can't see why this person would warrant a separate article, since I haven't been able to find continued mention of her in this only partially notable position in the past 3 years. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DALnet and other IRC network articles

[edit]
DALnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Undernet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rizon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RusNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SlashNET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
QuakeNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IRCnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
GameSurge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
EFnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am nominating all IRC network articles for deletion, except for freenode and OFTC which have non-trivial sources. I do not dispute that the largest IRC networks are more notable than the smaller ones, nor do I dispute that some of them have long and interesting histories for IRC users, and I am a big fan of IRC myself (I use many of these nets). However, all of these articles lack the reliable secondary sources necessary to put together a encyclopedia-quality article. At best someone might find some uninformed article in a newspaper, or a "...for Dummies" book that provides a stub-style description; such a description would likely belong on the main IRC article. Out of my concern for the quality of an article produced entirely by non-reliable Internet sources I ask for these deletions. Shii (tock) 06:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Certainly no consensus for deletion; possibly an editorial merger solution can be found.  Sandstein  23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koyambedu junction

[edit]
Koyambedu junction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Road junctions are not the type of thing we cover in Wikipedia. Google news search doesn't reveal much [42] and [43]. already covered in Koyambedu. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of Fate/stay night characters. As is usual with these closes, I will add the afdm tag to the articles, and then check them again in a few weeks. Any that have not been merged will then be redirected. Black Kite 16:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True Assassin

[edit]
True Assassin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

First off I will state that yes, this is a very large nomination. However all the articles share the same issue: they have all existed very long term in this state with *no* improvement whatsoever, and no effort to push for notability. Upon research, sources have only turned up for a few of the characters alone, and they are excluded from this nomination. Salvageable information can be combined into a list, however given the number of merge targets any such proposal is best handled here than via singular articles. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per nomation, suggesting the following also be deleted:

Assassin_(Fate/stay_night) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (2nd nomination)
Assassin (Fate/Zero) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Avenger (Fate/hollow ataraxia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Berserker (Fate/stay night) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Berserker (Fate/Zero) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Caster (Fate/stay night) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Caster (Fate/Zero) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lancer (Fate/Zero) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rider (Fate/stay night) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rider (Fate/Zero) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saber (Fate/stay night) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The points brought up for Saber are suitable. Retracting her article from the AfD.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Per sephiroth bcr. -- Goodraise (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. Kudos to nom for being reasonable on withdrawing Saber, the remainder are not notable enough for separate articles. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per all versions of WP:FICT, nominator's suggestion, and consensus that this is the best way to handle individually non-notable elements of a notable franchise. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the characters are from a fairly well-known series of games as well as an anime series released domestically in the US. However, I'll vote Merge as long as the information is indeed MERGED, not merely deleted and the names redirected. Nezu Chiza (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the individual entries on List of Fate/stay night characters. I'm not see much worth keeping/merging. The articles are mostly game guides. The individual characters have not received significant coverage by sources independent of the works, or those producing the works. --Farix (Talk) 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. Edward321 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - The majority of each of the pages are cruft, and they seem to be succinctly covered in the list article. --Izno (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Seems a lot of people are under the impression this is from "a" video game. The series reuses the same main charactors in many diffrent media forms, from the first game, it's sequal, the anime series, manga, and light novel, and even an upcomming fighter game released by Capcom.
    That's not the concern here though. These characters are not supported by notability as defined by Wikipedia, which says there need to be reliable secondary sources to establish that these articles should remain on Wikipedia. Without those sources, it's generally agreed that, if they are part of a long running series, or one that is supported by other media, it's best to merge them to a list and then redirect. As these articles don't have reliable sources, it would seem best to upmerge them. I'm not sure if you're confused on some point or if there's another issue at hand, or something else. --Izno (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was implying people were looking in the wrong places for reliable sources; just as game info. There's a lot of info on each of these pages that would have to be condenced if merged, or you would have some very long pages. I'm not one to bother looking for other sources mind you ;), but I'm just saying I don't think people were looking for the sources in the right areas, since there's so many diffrent forms of media these cover. If there was any merging, then all the classes should at least be kept seperate, with True Assassin being plased in with assassin.
    You're being a bit hypocritical when you say "[...]people were looking in the wrong places for reliable sources;[...]" followed by "I'm not one to bother looking for other sources [...]". From what I can tell, the onus is on those who wish to keep articles like these to provide the sources, while it is merely being polite for everyone !voting to delete or merge to assemble sources for you (plural). As for what could be kept separate, again, the choice isn't defined by us, but by what the reliable sources cover. If there's nothing out there to support independent articles, everything gets merged or deleted if that is what consensus comes up with. As for condensing, I don't see anything worth merging either, which is why I !voted to straight up redirect. You may feel free to keep your keep !vote, but there is little to back it up from what I can see. --Izno (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mege all as suggested. McWomble (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:WAF guidelines. Almost nothing to merge. Small amount of referenced out-of-universe material (voice actors, etc) can be easily included in the parent article/s. Marasmusine (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One cannot [[Wikipedia:Merge and delete|merge and delete' at the same time. It's either one or the other, or we combine the page histories in the target articles. The latter takes too much time (imo), so that's why the articles should be straight redirects if you're going to say "include some of the info in the parent articles". --Izno (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy them all! — all articles contain nothing but game guide material, excessive plot summaries/descriptions, or otherwise unverifiable original research. There is nothing here to merge or redirect. MuZemike (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you actually KNOW what the articles are about? Do you even know what type of game Fate is? These character properties are part of the story only not even related to the gameplay. Why not quote abilities as well? They could easily be game guide material. There are other ways these properties can be shown without it being in a game guide context. Please check up on what you are commenting on before making such statements. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master 01:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"On principle"?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All to List of Fate/stay night characters. Characters do not seem to have independent notability out of the series that they appear in, no third party coverage in reliable sources, etc. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge to List of Fate/stay night characters. They do not have notability outside of the series or anything not series related. However there is no reason to disinclude the information known about these characters. Having played part of the game I can state that the information present is most certainly not a game guide. The 'stats' of the chracters have no in game value other than that they exist. It is simply an easy way for those who already understand certain concepts within the series (and many times even those without knowledge) an easy way to identify key traits of characters. A section detailing what each of these things means may need to be added so that people who are reading it for the first time would be able to better understand. All in all i see no good reason to delete relevant information that could prove useful to those looking up these specific characters (I can honestly say that I know of at least 15-17 people who have used said pages as references for information directly relating to the characters). While they may be minor characters in the story, enough information is available that it is plausible to include arelatively detailed description of thei abilities. I reread the paragraph given about each character in the list article, and it proved to quite unsatisfactory, especially compared to the available information. Things such as abilities are relevent to the article as all characters are relatively defined in that universe by their trademark and other abilities and are thus (imo) relevant. Also isn't information directly from the source that created it (The Game, the manga, as well as the anime) a primary source of notability? I could be wrong but I thought that I would ask. Also does needing to have played the game fall under unverifiable original research? I mean it IS pretty verifiable... just play the game. If I am wrong about anything feel free to correct me, I just don't want to see useful or relevent information being lost without good reason.Firelordozaie (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep; nomination withdrawn. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Shadow of a Thousand Suns

[edit]
In the Shadow of a Thousand Suns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, removed by author. Non-notable album by non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Market Post Tower

[edit]
Market Post Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

office building known among Silicon Valley networking geeks but fails WP:N & WP:RS, article remains orphan after 2-1/2 years. Ikluft (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't worry, I noticed. I just don't think that a handful of newsbank hits from the 1980's are significant sources. That's really old info. We already knew the building exists. This article needs to meet the WP:CORP requirement of significant reliable sources because it's about a business organization. Please don't take it personally - I just don't think the sources exist to satisfy that requirement. We'll see if other editors find that convincing at all. Ikluft (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all Notability is not temporary. It doesn't matter if there are many reliable sources about this topic from the 1980s. It wouldn't matter if most of the sources came from the 1880s, it's still notable. Besides passing WP:CORP (it's the in-depth subject of multiple secondary reliable sources), a topic can considered notable if it passes only WP:NOTABILITY and not any of the "sub" guidelines like WP:CORP. --Oakshade (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Buildings are not organizations (neither are cars nor sandwiches). They are just material objects; some aspire to be art, some not. NVO (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a sense, this building is an organization. That's why I think it's notable. It's an important part of CGW's telecom infrastructure business. It's value as such is why they bought it. As a simple building, it's profoundly un-notable, unless you consider tacky overuse of gold film to be notable! Isaac R (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Ikluft (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The AfD has promoted some development of the article. I want to reiterate to the folks who are adding to it not to take this AfD personally. If you want to save the article, improving it is certainly the right way to go about it. I need to point out though that the 1980s newsbank links and an Australian article which mentions but is not specifically about the tower are probably too weak to keep it afloat - I'm not convinced to change any positions stated here before the recent additions to the page. If I had found better sources, I would have added them rather than doing the AfD nom. So good luck. Ikluft (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ikluft, your desire to delete this article is appearing a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. First you demanded that there be sources about the Market Post Tower. After they were provided, now you complain that they're "1980s newsbank links" as if that somehow negates the core passing criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. As your position keeps changing, it's becoming impossible to respond to you. If you want to change the guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY to not allow topics to be notable if many of the sources about them are from the 1980s or you want to do away with theNotability is not temporary clause, you need to make your case at the WP:NOTABILITY talk page, not try to push your agenda in a specific AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, let's not get into personal stuff. I think Ikluft's arguments are decently thought out, even though I don't agree with them (and he wants to delete my article!). Isaac R (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, let's not get personal. The refs that were added are too weak for WP:RS. An effort to save the article would need to find better sources. I think they don't exist. It definitely isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - I have plenty of friends with connections to the place. It just doesn't have what it takes to be listed by WP rules... unless better sources turn up. Ikluft (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reliable sources are "too weak"? Sorry, but articles that are about this building are in-depth which is the primary indicator of WP:NOTABILITY, a guideline which you seem to keep ignoring. If the coverage simply mentioned this topic "in passing" you would have a point, but of course the scope of the coverage is far beyond the scope of "in passing. From WP:NOTABILTY: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This topic has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Again, you need to try to change WP:NOTABILITY if you don't like the inclusion guidelines. Trying to change WP:NOTABILITY in an AfD is simply wasting time. --Oakshade (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "significant" in there should be taken seriously. The new refs are all 1980s clips (not even a whole article because newsbank only reveals some words) and an Australian article which is not about the tower. If these are all the refs that will be added, that supports the AfD nom and won't convince me. The argument would have to sway other editors. Preferably it should be as nice and polite as possible since AfD is a discussion that should win over other editors to consensus. (It is not a vote.) In order to sway me away from the AfD, it would need significant sources, which the current ones are not. Ikluft (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to read WP:NOTABILITY's definition of "Significant coverage": "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.. The sources address the subject directly in detail. "Trivial" is defined by WP:N as "a directory listing" or "passing mention." The sources are very far beyond the scope of either. In regards to the 1980s, you seem to be under the very strange impression that sources from the 1980s are not considered reliable sources. If you don't think so, so be it, but WP:NOTABILITY makes no such age discrimination. See WP:Notability is not temporary from WP:N. --Oakshade (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only advice that needs to be given right now is to find better sources. Yes, I think the references so far are indeed trivial. Early financial difficulties are trivial. Statues in the lobby are trivial. The only ref that mentions its use as a peering point isn't about the building. So far they all count for zero in the AfD. You'll impress no one by attacking others. Stop complaining and find some adequate references. I'd call it a good outcome whether the article is improved enough to survive the AfD, or is deleted for not being up to minimum standards. But an inadequate article and personal attacks add up to the worst outcome - please take a more productive and positive approach. Ikluft (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trivial" is defined by WP:NOTABILITY as a "directory listing" or "passing mention". Articles which you admit are about early financial difficulties are not directory listings or passing mentions. If you wish to change what is considered trivial in WP:NOTABILITY you need to make your case on that page's talk page, not claim sources found on an individual article are trivial which is purely your opinion but opposite of reality. --Oakshade (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Havaldar Gajender Singh

[edit]

Please keep hi profile..if you could keep a terrorist overhere why can't you keep a brave soldier..shame on you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.239.17.86 (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Havaldar Gajender Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet notability guidelines. The only notable item mentioned in this bio is dying in the November 2008 Mumbai attacks while fighting terrorists. Rawr (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Once again i am asking same question is terrorist are more notable than a martyr? there are many articles on terrorists. Is this wiki policy to make notable terrorist rather than a martyr? Aminami (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please do not mistake notability for honorability. --Alan Au (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Deserve": as said before, notable is not equal honorable. As despicable as these terrorists are, they may be notable (I haven't looked at this particular article, hence "may"), whereas their victims may not be. That is not somehow a sign that WP finds the terrorists "more deserving" than their victims. --Crusio (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He may not be honored today, but soon he will be honored by the Government, so keep and update it, he will become an notable person, its only now he has been recognisation, so lets give him a place on WP - Suresh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.150.249 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep He is honored already and the importance of person should be measured by the importance of his actions not length of time. The WP guidelines should not be used to selectively remove certain articles and ignore others. Gajendra Singh is important in Indian context. Just as some people of the Mumbai attacks are important in the context of other countries Israel, USA and others. Selectively bringing Afd also amount to POV because ones is suppressing certain article and letting others be. 221.249.25.218 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above two "Keep" nominations do not have any regard to the WP policies and guidelines, they are just emotive rhetoric. "Importance" in a country's context does not necessarily make them notable. As has already been mentioned numerous this, this person fails WP:ONEEVENT WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BIO insofar as he is not notable outside of this. Further, you've misinterpreted WP:POV - if other articles are similar to this, they, too should be nominated for deletion. Would you care to provide examples? Johnson8776 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Maxim(talk) 20:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Mark

[edit]
Ross Mark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable ice hockey player. Has not played at the highest level of play, or any professional level. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yanceys

[edit]
Yanceys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am sending this to AFD for some consensus. This location does exist, and it even has had its moments in the sun in the years prior to the creation of Yellowstone National Park. Nobody lives there now - its just a minor historical curiosity in a park filled with much more interesting curiosities. The problem is that this "town" has a U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Yanceys entry and so it has the usual collection of Google links for real estate, dating and jobs in "Yanceys Wyoming". To make matters worse, the original author added a link to a website listing an effective population of 36 people within a 7km radius, which is deceptive because there are ranger and tourist facilities at Tower Junction, just a few km to the southeast, and I'm sure that none of them think they live in Yancey's, Wyoming. I updated the article with the best known information about the name from a reliable source, but I still don't think that this location is nearly notable enough for Wikipedia, despite what WP:OUTCOMES says. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If people ever lived there in the past its notable just as much as now. it is probably also notable as an pioneering tourist site. Things which have had their moments in the sun remain notable for an encyclopedia--preserving this information is one of the key purposes there have always been for encyclopedias.DGG (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The location is not merely a location of a lodge, but the area has also been the subject of non-trivial academic journal articles which have made detailed studies of the wildlife in the Yancey's area. For example, E.R. Warren in 1926 wrote the paper A study of beaver in the Yancey region of Yellowstone National Park, and if you take a look at Google Scholar you will find several more. The place has therefore been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage, and passes WP:N. The article is a stub, and ought to have some content on flora and fauna, but that is a problem which cannot be solved by deleting the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted above, ghost towns are notable because they were communities, and notability isn't temporary. While sites such as fallingrain really don't appear to be reliable, the GNIS listing is highly reliable and in some ways definitive, making the community plainly notable. In accord with the US community naming conventions, I've moved this to Yanceys, Wyoming. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I think that the term ghost town is pushing it. This was never a community - as far as I can tell, this was just a single lodge / ranch / hotel out in the middle of the wilderness. I think that the GNIS entry as a populated place is more of a historical oddity carried over from older maps. Wyoming is filled with unremarkable swales and valleys named after homesteaders and a single rancher does not a community make. However, I agree that the geography of the general area is notable, and for some strange reason, we do not yet have an article on Tower Junction which is an important location in Yellowstone. There is enough history as to Yancey's that if this article is kept, it could be nicely merged into a larger Tower Junction article. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 19:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a populated place in the past (enough to be included on official maps), either it's yet a community today, or it was and now isn't a community — thus making it a ghost town. If you can convince the GNIS (there is a way to contact them if you believe you can prove that it wasn't and isn't a populated place) that it's not a populated place, the strongest argument to keep this place falls; but as the GNIS, a highly reliable source that's part of the USGS, sees this as a populated place, I don't see why we should tell the USA's central mapping authority that it's wrong. Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I'm not convinced. I went looking for some examples of similar locations that might also be labeled as "populated place" by GNIS, and I found one. Pahaska Tepee was William "Buffalo Bill" Cody's hunting lodge near the eastern entrance of Yellowstone Park. It is, and has always been, just the lodge - there might be a few caretakers or staff that live nearby these days, but it would be difficult to argue that it was a "community" by any standards. Yet, the GNIS calls it a populated place. I think the most telling part is the citation for both Yancey's and Pahaska Tepee, if I may quote from the GNIS: Collected during Phase I data compilation (1976-1981), primarily from U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000-scale topographic maps (or 1:25K, Puerto Rico 1:20K), various edition dates, and from U.S. Board on Geographic Names files.. I think this is how we got to where we are - the name existed in some prominence in the past, and the name was absorbed when the GNIS got organized. So the question is - in Wikipedia's eyes, what makes a populated place a community, and what makes a community notable enough? Does a ranch count as a populated place? How about a homesteader's cabin? I don't think they are notable, just for existing, but I would be happy to be told I'm wrong. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 15:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Chinese and United States governments

[edit]
Comparison of Chinese and United States governments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a proper topic for an encyclopedia. There are about 200 nations in the world. If we compared the government of each one to each other one that would be 40,000 articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it would only be 20,000 articles. Matchups 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 x 2 = 4, 100 x 100 = 10,000, 10,000 x 4 = 40,000. That's how I figure these kind of things out. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comparison of Russian and United States governments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Steve Dufour (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business research

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Business research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems like WP:OR to me. It's been tagged for a bit with no real improvement. DARTH PANDAduel 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just someone's school paper. Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, pure tautological bollocks from start to finish: Business communicators face daily challenges that require data collection, idea gene ration, and concept organization. These activities are part of the second phase of the writing process, which includes researching, organizing and composing . . . Then you organize the ideas into sub clusters shown in Figure 6.2. This set of sub clusters could form the basis for an outline. Or you could make another set of sub clusters, further outlining the categories. The reference to "Figure 6.2", not supplied, makes me suspect that this is a copyvio of some sort, likely copied from a book rather than from a website, in which case this should be speedily deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete — tautological bullshit (sorry, I'm American), that's a good one! MuZemike (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. JuJube (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Hazelhurst Regional Gallery and Arts Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG. no real evidence of notability. Google news search indicates hardly any third party coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musiconradio.com

[edit]
Musiconradio.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music-related web site. Off-key in regard to WP:RS and WP:WEB. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. A2, copy of material in foreign language that is available on other wiki. Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

بهرام آباد (رودبار شهرستان قزوین )

[edit]
بهرام آباد (رودبار شهرستان قزوین ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been deprodded by a regular editor on the grounds that it could use a little more time. After being tagged for translation at WP:PNT, it remained untouched for the normal two weeks, though in the mean time it has been successfully transwikied to the Farsi Wikipedia. But here in the English Wikipedia, given the fact there has been no progress whatsoever in the translation for more than two weeks, I had to prod it. It's been deprodded at the last minute. Given that the text is now part of the Farsi Wikipedia, where it can be retrieved for an eventual translation, and given that in three weeks we could have expected to get at least a stub, I say delete without prejudice against recreation in a language that resembles English.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological list of Famicom games, 1989-1994

[edit]
Chronological list of Famicom games, 1989-1994 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List is no longer necessary as the List of Famicom games can be sorted by date if needed. List contains the same information found in the List of Famicom games with the exception of the Japanese text in which I do not think is necessary to include in the big list.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same exact reason as above:

Chronological list of Famicom games, 1983–1988 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MuZemike (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Roberson

[edit]
Dan Roberson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is questionable. Brougham96 (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Saga: The Winged Odyssey

[edit]
Angel Saga: The Winged Odyssey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No record of this novel could be found on worldcat.org, no reliable sources could be located to allow the novel to pass WP:BK. Captain-tucker (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Hans Schöner

[edit]
Gregor Hans Schöner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently this guy ran a failed dotcom from 1999 to 2001. Who among us didn't, really? I don't think that's sufficient to establish notability. Also, of the three sources in the article, none are about the subject of the article and only one even mentions him by name. Newsaholic (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 01:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Mastrilli

[edit]
Marcello Mastrilli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy was declined. This person is only notable for one event. Schuym1 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep- a quick Google search yields pages and pages of results. Now, I'm not an expert in Catholic or Jesuit history so I can't judge which of these sources are reliable and independent (though this one and this one look promising). It does appear as though Mastrilli is noted for more than his unfortunate death. Reyk YO! 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even if only on the base of Reyk's findings (nice findings, Reyk!). First of all, martyrs are sort of by definition known for only one thing (dying); the rest of their notability must come from their afterlife. Many saints aren't even historical, esp. the early Roman saints. Second, this guy is memorialized in a few books (and Reyk, your second reference is really wild; besides, notability for his 'ridiculous impostures' could conceivably be established), and that's enough for me. Besides, he's also mentioned in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia ("Novena"); I'll add that reference to the article. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note--I've done a bit of work on the article (thanks again, Reyk), and took the liberty to remove a couple of the tags. (Notability, for instance: I believe the person is notable.) Drmies (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Reyk YO! 04:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Eli

[edit]
The Book of Eli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is not yet warranted per the notability guidelines for future films since filming is scheduled to begin in February 2009. In the film industry, there is no guarantee that production will take place. Article has been userfied at User:Erik/The Book of Eli per WP:FUTFILM. No issue with recreation if it can be reliably sourced that filming has begun. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assuming that this film never takes off, we are left with nothing but a stub of intent that has no long-term value. It could easily go under the Hughes Brothers article, "In 2008, they were scheduled to direct the post-apocalyptic drama film The Book of Eli with Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman, but the project stalled." WP:NFF is in place to ensure a fuller article, one that will have details about the plot, the production, the reception, the themes, etc. Projects do come and go in Hollywood all the time; at this point, we don't know of the lasting value of this particular one other than what has been news in trade papers. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To follow up, the most suitable policy-based rationale is WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." So mention of this project could be mentioned at the directors' article. Furthermore, it says that announcements are not sufficient basis for starting an article, and the current article seems based on announcements. Here's an example of an announcement-based article that wouldn't be in the mainspace: User:Erik/Isobar (film). Some rustling about it, but nothing ever happened. Hope you understand what I mean by all this! —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I wish there were more references than just Variety, that would help its case as far as notability. I don't think it should be merged into the Hughes Brothers' article. This stub provides more information than would likely be included in the Hughes Brothers article (cast, writers, etc.). So I say it should be kept, and if the film doesn't go through, put it up for deletion or just delete it then. Killiondude (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I agree this article provides more information than the typical future film. But since films are often shelved before production even begin the WP:NFF rule that a film should have started shooting before having an article is reasonable. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the Hughes Brothers have had rumored on again/off again projects since their last film was completed nearly eight years ago, and none of those works have warranted articles. Better to wait and create it anew when there is more information available after production begins. María (habla conmigo) 13:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The reasons that the notability guideline for future films recommends that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production are very good, practical ones. Budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. So many projects are announced and then fail to materialise that directed use of the guideline is the only way of ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline; all that would remain is an article based on a short burst of news stories that appeared when it was announced. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile, with major stars attached, that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Projects can be put on hold at the last minute while a director tackles another film (e.g. Spielberg's Lincoln). There's the potential actors' strike coming up too; look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike (e.g. Pinkville, Justice League). Projects unrelated to the strikes, but which are still in development hell, include Jurassic Park IV (many would consider this a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight; indeed, it was actually supposed to be released in 2005), and White Jazz. State of Play, which had Brad Pitt and Edward Norton mere weeks away from filming in November 2007, was a hair's breadth away from being abandoned after Pitt jumped ship. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 14:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF and all Steve said about it. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Posey

[edit]
Cody Posey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article should be deleted per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. Schuym1 (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fool proof campaign

[edit]
Fool proof campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school project with no sourcing. Entirely original research. Newsaholic (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Hayley Gordon Moore

[edit]
Coco Hayley Gordon Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Coco Hayley Gordon Moore is the daughter of Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore, two musicians from Sonic Youth. While her parents are two (somewhat) famous musicians, their daughter has not done anything notable enough to warrant her own article. The article claims she has been in several music videos, albeit small appearances. Overall fails WP:NOTE; just because her parents are notable does not mean she is. NSR77 T 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. either way (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Harris

[edit]
Fox Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus. MBisanz talk 02:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary Roman Catholic Church in Marion, Ohio

[edit]
St. Mary Roman Catholic Church in Marion, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's nothing to set apart this parish church, so it fails WP:N. The fact that it's the only Roman Catholic church in Marion, OH doesn't count: Marion is rather small at 35,000 people, and may well be more Protestant than Catholic. Biruitorul Talk 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete WP:SNOWBALL as blatant soapboxing; no valid arguments for retention. Orange Mike | Talk 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of human sanctity

[edit]
History of human sanctity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article purports to be a history of a topic that does not itself have an article: there is no human sanctity. The apparent purpose of this article is to act as a pro-life soapbox, so it's essentially a POV fork from an article that doesn't even exist. Spotfixer (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the bitterly biased view above, the point of the article is to allow for more in-depth development on the historical side of the beginning of human life article, which wont fit there, because that article deals with the contemporary issue. -Zahd (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article gives about half anti-abortion opinions and about half that would permit abortion in some cases. I don't see how it is a soapbox. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the purpose of this article is to deal with the historical aspects of the beginning of human life, it has the wrong title! Not to mention the wrong text... SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History of abortion already seems to contain most of the information in this one, just from a quick glance. Another reason to delete this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedily deleted A7, G11 after recreation. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IBeatYou

[edit]

A minor video hosting site, where people challenge each other. The creator of the article is claiming it's notable, since Jessica Alba and two basketballers posted here, but Google News Archives doesn't seem to have anything too recent about the site, showing it's only a blip. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#.233:_Availability_of_real_world_perspective
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Characters
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_1&oldid=1234119177"