Revelation (Sansom novel) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 9: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:33, 14 October 2008

< October 8	October 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Team zEx

There are no reliable third-party sources for this article. As such, it fails WP:V and WP:N. (Previous AFDs resulted in deletion, and no consensus, which can be clarified now.) May or may not require a delete and salt. Randomran (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete--I agree with Randomran. No notability, not even a point. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete — no verifiable, third party sources establishing notability for organizations. However, hold the salt as the last deletion was well over a year ago (see WP:CHANCE). MuZemike (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No third-party resources, a really small list, stuff that makes MY editing look good... We should delete it. MKguy42192 (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as no notability through reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a group/organisation/club which fails the notability criteria as well as the verifiability criteria through the lack of 3rd party reliable sourcing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Pointiless and unverifiable. --Danie Tei (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Team zEx was one of the biggest Multi Gaming Organistations in the world at its peak and I think that to delete the wikipedia page would be a shame. Oisinjm (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete. While I'll grant the second AfD is a reason not to speedy delete it under G4, this article is not improved from the version that was deleted in the first AfD. Non-verifiable, no clear indication of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

DJ Sharpnel

Also nominating:

Artists fail WP:MUSIC - no assertion of notability, and their music is self-published. None of the references qualify as WP:RS. Recommend Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with delete--totally self-published, without any independent verification of importance this is little more than a description of a hobby. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails wp:music, self pub, editors above pretty much summed it up. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as no notability outside their own minds. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Both for failing WP:MUSIC as well as the more general WP:N and WP:V. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Porn Newz

Not notable. Even a google search thinks it is misspelled. Can't find verification through reliable sources. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. There's a website, and it's really a blog of sorts. Bleh. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Besides, the writer deleted the db-a7, no? Drmies (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wasnt my speedy tag, but yes he did, which isn't cricket. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
delete as no notability yet... but maybe its coming... wait its coming... Nah. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as it fails WP:WEB, WP:CORP, WP:SPAM as well as the more general notability and verifiability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. kur ykh 05:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nursie

Non-notable character, hardly warrants her own article - suggest that if not deletion, merge with List of minor Blackadder characters ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep/Comment It's awfully well-written, well-sourced, and well-formatted for what some consider a "minor" character. BMW(drive) 23:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is see 'no sources at all. Did i miss something? Not even a ref/notes section.Yobmod (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep also--it is very well-written, and while there seem to be no books or articles published on Nursie, she is quoted all over the internet, and rightly so. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep per above. A little too major to be a "minor character", if I had to rank them I'd say she was probably about fifth ranked in Blackadder II. Well written, too. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete or merge per nom. Well written, and a hilarious character from a great series. And non-notable and unverified. The article is mostly a series of quotes, with nothing to show she has any real world notability. WP:ILIKEIT, but there is no more reason to keep this character's article than there is for most pokemon (who probobly have many more sites devoted to them on the 'net).Yobmod (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge rather than delete -- significant character, present in all(?) B#2 eps., and occasionally a plot-axis -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep'significant enough over a fairly long run for a separate article. DGG (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G1. Spellcast (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

DarkJester

Contested deletion of nonsense biography — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 14:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cinterion Wireless Modules

Spam and copyvio. Previous deletion attempt contested. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment, if it's got a csd tag on it, I see no reason why to bring it to AfD. RockManQ ^(talk) 23:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Now someone has added content. RockManQ ^(talk) 23:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Speedy this per WP:ADVERT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete...fails WP:Notability (companies). RockManQ ^(talk) 23:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed to Keep based on sources. Good job with it Eastmain. RockManQ ^(talk) 23:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I got rid of the copyvio and added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can withdraw my Delete request due to the attentions of Eastmain, as he has sourced and removed copyvio. But what is the notability? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I brought my deletion request from delete to weak delete; I would like to know though: can you understand French. How did you translate the foreign source? RockManQ ^(talk) 23:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete: I agree with RockManQ that the article fails WP:Notability (companies), as the only English-language reference is not freely verifiable - http://www.telecom.paper.nl/news/article.aspx?id=217207&nr= says "The article you requested is only available to subscribers". — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

English: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and more. I was asking about specific notability... and if that can be shown, I'll happily agree to keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

- References don't have to be in English or available for free to be valid. The preview of the Telecom Paper article is enough to verify that Telecom Paper ran an article about the company, and the French-language article can be read using http://translate.google.com at the following URL: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.itrmanager.com%2Farticles%2F78126%2Fsiemens-rend-liberte-division-modules-fil.html&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=fr&tl=en -- Eastmain (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. RockManQ ^(talk) 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Heck... if I could find sources then the artcle can be salvaged. Even Google News] has lots to offer. Since it has coverage in reliable sources that speak toward its notability, its a matter of cleanup and not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep I am working on expanding the article. Much of the coverage in GoogleNews consists of press releases (which are traditionally not held to count for notability) but there is sufficent coverage elsewhere to justify inclusion. Icewedge (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

True... but all one need do is find the pearl in the oyster. Luck. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Already Deleted by User:B, via G1, (NAC). RockManQ ^(talk) 23:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Larry the Shlarp

Nonsense. Previous deletion attempt was contested. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted[6], thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. kur ykh 05:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nailin' Paylin

Non-notable product. If there's a CSD category that this falls under I would have marked it that way. However, I couldn't identify one. Deadly∀ssassin 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 22:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- It was on Conan last night, but that doesn't make it notable yet. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 23:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete for now. If it is indeed produced by Hustler, a notable publisher, then it may come to meet the notability criteria after its publication. For now, however, as the film has not even finished shooting, and the only source is a blog, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball would seem to apply. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there's more than just a blog as a source. But delete for the moment anyway as we're neither a newspaper nor a crystall ball and not every bad joke which gets a a little press for a couple of days has long term notability. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystall ball and even if this is released there's no indication it will be notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - That's just too many google news hits. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete according to the article it is in "pre-production" which means it doesn't meet the future films criteria. wikipedia is NOT a news or gossip site and we shouldn't be operating as one. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Just way too many independent reliable sources about the subject that is the basis of WP:N. I look at notnews and don't think this is routine coverage of tabloid journalism. If it was just TMZ and People that was reporting on this, then sure but not when mainstream newspapers are involved. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - This is not gossip or just blogs, this is an actual movie being made, that has many sources talking about it. To say that it should be deleted because it isn't made yet it ridiculous. Their are tons of articles about upcoming movies on this site. Also this is important, as it shows how big this election is and the people surrounding it. Palin is big in the news, and people want to hear things that have to do with her, and this will be a much viewed article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Wanamaker (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think we all agree that Sarah Palin is notable. That doesn't automatically make this in-production film notable, however. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete for now. As per Fisherqueen's statements. --Juansidious (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment/Neutral this movie is lame for not picking a better lookalike for palin. I agree this movie exists and will be produced. WP:FILM suggests that an article can probably not be written before principle filming (which is scheduled to start today) and this is clearly not a WP:CRYSTAL issue. The sour; notable, if crude satirecing it pretty weak gruel, with the most august of the bunch being the new york daily news...But we really honestly do have to prepare ourselves for the eventuality that there will be an article on this subject when the film is released. So I'm on the fence. Protonk (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
KEEP Crude, but notable satire.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep I'm afraid notability is assured due to the people being parodied. The news accounts about this are only just getting started. 33 unique Google News hits in 4 days is certain significant media coverage. It's still pre-release. The commentary, reportage, over-all impact, and notability will only increase. It's being produced by HUSTLER. If this were some small indie or other non-notable company, I could argue against notability. But an effort like this on the part of HUSTLER adds greatly to its significance. "Not crystal" is not a valid deletion argument-- you don't need a crystal ball to see this one coming. Dloh cierekim 04:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the comment about Conan O'Brien. If the late news pundits have already picked it up, then it is likely to meet "household name" criteria for notability. Dloh cierekim 04:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep this made it into a swiss newspaper. surely relevant! --Philtime (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Please. Wikipedia is not news, particularly not sub-tabloid quality news about short term publicity stunts. What's more, this is a future film whose cited sources are online websites that spread porn industry gossip. Notability is nonexistent, taste is awful. RayAYang (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cristobal Dominguez

I really cannot make head or tail of this article - it is an almost entirely random collection of words. It does seem to vaguely mention a chess player who may or may not be worthy of an article, but as it stands this is a probable candidate for deletion per WP:PN; bringing it here for discussion. Ros0709 (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I agree that the article is poorly written and poorly sourced, but that is a matter for cleanup.. not deletion. As a Chess master he does have some coverage that may lend itself to cleanup, expansion, and proper sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Much of the writing problems stems from it being a translation of this page. I'm not copyright-savvy enough to know if that makes it a copyvio issue.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep as english no good but chess ok. and per Q. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't appear to have been a sufficiently highly ranked player and doesn't have significant tournament wins. Clarityfiend (talk)
Comment. The subject's maximum rating achievement appears to be 2259 [7], which is a strong master level, and of a level where you would compete in fairly prestigious national tournaments, but it is below the grandmaster and/or national champion level where I will almost automatically say "keep", and even below the international master level where I am somewhat ambivalent. However, the article does cite this Spanish biography which does seem to contribute to meeting WP:BIO guidelines. Staying neutral, and will add a note on the WP:CHESS WikiProject. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Major achivement of Cristobal Dominguez is not only to be well ranked but to be a booster of the Game in a city [8] that since his appearance recovered its relevance as a reference in South American chess [9] 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrominguez (talk • contribs)

Delete Not enough accomplishements to be considered a notable chess player. The title of Chess master is way too low to give notability, the least to be notable would be Grandmaster, which is much higher. SyG (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cities in the developing world

Appears to be a personal essay. Interesting, but fails WP:OR & WP:SYN. I don't think it's salvageable, as there's very little linkage between the cities mentioned, aside from their location in the developing world. Recommend Delete, but wouldn't be opposed to a fundamental rewrite. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I'd suggest it be deleted, but it might be rescued. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This isn't even a very good essay. The first point made is that "a defining characteristic of all major cities, both modern and ancient, is disease brought about by overpopulation", which isn't even true. (New York is a major city, for instance, but it's hardly defined by being disease-ridden!) The rest isn't much better. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete personal essay; original research. Any useful information here may be moved to Third World. Themfromspace (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Cities in the developing world are the cities of tomorrow... Yeah. Delete JuJube (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 05:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Carlie Wong

If I understand precedent correctly, reality show participants aren't considered notable unless their importance has also been discussed in reliable, third-party sources. This particular person finished eighth on a season of Project Runway, and in my opinion, does not have the sources that would make her notability clear. I searched google briefly and didn't find the kinds of sources that I thought met WP:RS. Prod removed by creator, who appears to be Carlie Wong herself. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I, myself, am not Carlie Wong, but the only wikipedia I planned on creating was for Carlie Wong (thus the username). And if Kelli Martin, Kit Pistol, Kevin Johnn, and Diana Eng can have articles for Project Runway when none of them are notable (and their articles are otherwise stubs), then Carlie Wong should be able to have one, too. Carlie Wong has shown a collection at L'Oreal Fashion Week and is preparing to show again in October. The four designers I have named above have never shown at a prestigious fashion week. So if they have this "notability" then why doesn't Carlie Wong? Perhaps propose to delete their articles?

I do understand you are trying to keep wikipedia orderly and the best it can be, so I appreciate you carefully checking my article (now with refrences/citations and celebrity clientele to come in the next few hours/days). So I really hope that this article doesn't have to be deleted, because I really do believe it is notable.

If there's any way you see the article can be improved as a matter of rhetoric, do let me know.

Thank you, Brett CarlieWong (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Comment speaking about other articles as a defense of this one is not an appropriate argument. See WP:WAX. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as this person is known for one event... that she did not even win. The article is certainly sourced to heaven... but where is the notability? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wong is noted for Project Runway Canada and for L'Oreal Fashion Week. That's two events going on three. But if you really do feel strongly about deleting it, please do so. You are the experts, not me. So I'll completely understand if you do. No worries. :)

thank you for your consideration.CarlieWong (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Query: Could someone knowledgeable advise, if you strip out the Project Runway thing, at what point would showing a collection at a Fashion week cross the notability threshold ? -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Losing contestants on reality shows aren't notable, but neither are high school football coaches like Mark Mangino: they can be notable simply by having multiple reliable sources, and neither being the losing contestant nor being a high school football coach disqualifies them from notability. Wong seems to have about five different reliable sources on this article, and (as the unsigned comment says) for different events, too, so I can't see how this person fails the notability test. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I don't know why someone would make a username based off a real person if they are not said person. Even if they aren't, it's just going to lead people to believe that they are.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If Carlie Wong is so notable then Biddell should have a page, since he won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.247.26 (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael F. Rogers

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails notability requirement per WP:Baseball. Millbrooky (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Batted .214 in rookie ball in 1987, then disappeared. Notability apparently based on a college home run record, but the Texas Rangers only made him a 20th-round draft pick so apparently hitting 45 home runs in 4 years of Missouri U baseball isn't overwhelming (it didn't even get him into the college's sports hall of fame). Name barely appears in any of the reliable sources referenced. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The only WP:Verifiable information about Rogers is that he played a season of Single-A baseball and he once held his university's home run record (mentioned in passing). Everything else is either unverifiable or about the achievements of people around him. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable one year minor league career, college and high school achievements really do not address why this person should have a page. Hardnfast (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 05:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Zukhits

This reads like a fansite / advert, is poorly referenced, and makes no credible claim of notability. I have chased down the references for convenience:

The references do little to provide context on the subject of the article:

"Hernan Santiago: Recording Engineer". No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.
"The Lab: Ask Duro". No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.
"Kingz Kounty available at Tower Records". Mentioned as one of 5 producers on the record.
Baker, Soren (2002-04-11). "VH1 Kingz Kounty Review". VH1.com. Mentioned briefly as "promising" in passing in a longer article.
Buschmann, Uwe (2003-05-07). "German Kingz Kounty Review". Plattenkritiken. Mentioned once in passing on a German language web page about the album Kingz Kounty.
Baker, Soren (2002-04-07). "Neil Young Tries on a New Hat". Mentioned in a one-paragraph blurb on Kingz Kounty in a series of notes after an article.
"Ian London Productions". No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.
"Big Sound Music Documentary" (2008). Article subject is conducting an interview broadcast on YouTube, not the subject of one.
"Tony Dawsey - Discography" (2007-09-11). No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.
"MasterDisk Studios". No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.

The creator of the page has, since my original tagging of the page, made several edits to the page in the form of removing tags and tweaking the references, but has made no material changes to the content or actually improved or provided additional references.

Bongomatic (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless proper notability can be provided through WP:Notability (persons) as my own search for Zukhits brings up trivial hits. The article and current references seem to be stressing and taking advantage of notability by association... but Notibility is not inherited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - having your name mentioned in passing in a few articles - however important the publication might be - is a far cry from being the subject of those articles. I see no legitimate claim to Wikipedia notability. JohnInDC (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal How about I reduce the article to a stub and take out the trivial material. As I've said before he is a credible producer with production credits on two commercially released CDs (Kingz Kounty and Bro Kin Haylow). As per wikipedia guidelines: A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries[2] except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." He satisfies the notability requirement because he has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (LA Times, VH1, and the German article) whose source is independent from the musician itself and reliable. Therefore if I remove everything else the wikipedia guidelines should be satisified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPercy (talk • contribs) 22:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of states that formally recognise the independent Republic of Slovenia

Short, incomplete, and very useless list. Fixman^{Praise me} 20:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Short and incomplete means sources have to be found that make the list up-to-date. Useless is in this case really a matter of opinion; ask someone from Slovenia...

Van der Hoorn (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as a wonderfully sourced list that will change on an almost daily basis. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The existence of this article implies that there are states that don't recognize Slovenia. But as far as I can tell, every state recognizes Slovenia. See List of unrecognized countries; Slovenia is not listed as lacking recognition by any country. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete for that matter, why don't we also write a "List of Countries that Recognize Canada". Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's Canada? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. If there is some historical non-recognition, it should be put into History of Slovenia or just Slovenia, but since there's no indication in the list of anything but "everybody recognizes Slovenia," this list is not needed. The United Nations and every major world power recognize Slovenia. – jaksmata 13:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per Erik the Red 2's and Jaksmata's comments. --Yerpo (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, all relevant info rom that list can be used in the History of Slovenia. --Tone 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 03:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Kharak

This fictional planet does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect, or Merge to Homeworld Universe as there is no notability outside that universe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Seriously, how much fictional trivia does Wikipedia need? "However the possibility of survivors on Kharak is often a theme in Homeworld fan fiction," the article states--oh? A. needs a citation; B. how does this matter? Drmies (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete — Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. MuZemike (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as lacking non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N. Also fails WP:V, at present. Randomran (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Completely in-universe. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete If this was actually important there'd still be somewhere else to put it --Danie Tei (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, In-universe ~~content~~ trivia that demonstrates no notability outside the series. RockManQ ^(talk) 21:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 03:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Karan S'jet

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete and set Redirect or Merge to Homeworld Universe as there is no notability outside that universe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete — Original research does not pay. MuZemike (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as lacking non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N. Also fails WP:V, at present. Randomran (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. WP:OR. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, you could smack it with deletion for a lot of things; WP:OR is the most obvious here. RockManQ ^(talk) 21:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 05:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Laurentian Wesleyan Church

Article about a fairly recent church (for a church that is) written entirely by the pastor himself (see the talk page) with little evidence of notability, that is, it has a website, and was written about about in the local newspaper because it sends books around the world. While this is a worthy cause, its nothing unique. Jac16888 (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep--(Pretty much copied from talk page:) As it is, the church isn't really very notable--there are simply few references to it, to put it mildly. Besides, what is a serious concern is the extensive, extensive "Current Events" section, which reads like an advertisement--those things aren't really events, and if they're current events, they are not the kind of thing one should find in an encyclopedia. Current events belong in a newspaper. Summarizing that whole paragraph into a sentence or two and moving it up in the article might allay some editors' concerns. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep The argument that this church is recent makes it sound like it was formed at least since 1970. In North America any organization that pre-dates the start of World War II has survived at least some test of time.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Absolutely no proof of notability given. Why a weak keep? Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. A lot of churches are notable such as Willow Creek Community Church. This church appears to be a nice local church that is not notable outside of its community. Remember, it's not that the church itself would be bad, it's just that an article about the church isn't appropriate for this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see evidence for notability from reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 14:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge to North Bay, Ontario. JASpencer (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete; the North Bay Nugget article about 66 banana boxes full of Bibles not enough for notability in the Wiki sense. Some info can go into North Bay, Ontario. Springnuts (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- GFDL would then require either a redirect or history merge to allow author history. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge to North Bay, Ontario. I have cleaned up the article a bit but with only one reliable source (I suspect the book has little to no direct mentions of this individual church but that's only a guess), Notability guideline has not been met and there is danger of violating WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. It can be mentioned in the city article and if more reliably-sourced information is added, then an independent article may be justified then. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Smith Hall (Anderson Univ.)

There is nothing to show that this student dorm is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, or any different from a hundred others. PROD removed by author saying "renovations are significant and notable." No, they're not: this is material for the campus website, not for an encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete--I agree completely. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. We're talking about a roomful of beds here.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep - I've been there and it is a well-known building on campus. With more than 2 million articles on Wikipedia this deletion debate is kind of a waste of time to be honest. --Sigma Epsilon Chi (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note — above user has been blocked for usage of an improper username. MuZemike (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think that should be held against the user in this disccusion--it is an enthusiastic newbie editor who did not know that it is against policy to use an organization's name as a user name. It's getting fixed, but it shouldn't affect the outcome of this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment - agree with Paul; strikeout removed from his !vote. JohnCD (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Neither the building nor its history appear notable. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete but a high-five for enthusiasm! Sorry, but "well known on campus" is not a reason to keep an article in a global encyclopedia. Hey, it's probably a cool dorm and stuff--but what makes it special from the other dorms on campus and all the other campuses at all the other colleges and universities? Is it on the National Register of Historic Places? Did George Washington sleep there? Any historical events of importance?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete or merge to Anderson University (Indiana) as no specific notability has been asserted or shown. My own initial search shows that there are "Smith Halls" all over the United States. My second search shows that there are a number of "Smith Halls" in Indiana. My third search, narrowing things down, finds no special notability. Sorry. May be a wonderful place on campus... but outside that world... nothing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless there is a claim to an as-yet unrevealed notability per Paul McDonald. Newsaholic (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge. Can this information be moved over to and added to the Anderson University page?--Kschro10 (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you could certainly add some of this information to the Residential Buildings section of the University article, keeping in mind the balance of the whole article. JohnCD (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - it seems that a class at Anderson U has been set an assignment of getting something into WP. Fair enough, but contributions must meet the encyclopedia's standards. For any classmates reading this, I suggest you look at the guidelines on Notability and Verifiability, the guide to writing Your First Article, and the List of Bad Article Ideas (especially no.4 in the list: "your dormitory"!) JohnCD (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Scott Ragsdale

Proposal for deletion due to lack of content which would tie this article to anything meaningful except for the naseba article. IMHO reads very much like a personal description on a homepage or such. piksi (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Only real references are from the same small newspaper. Non-notable, non-verifiable.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete not notable Clubmarx (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, agree with others that this appears not to be a significant or notable businessman — even if the company is notable, he doesn't inherit notability simply by being its founder, CEO, etc. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The requirements for WP:BIO articles is non-trivial coverage from multiple third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Editors can feel free to redirect as appropriate. Cirt (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A Piece of the Action (Robot Chicken episode)

I usually prefer to merge/redirect subpar episode articles to keep the page histories around for theoretical future improvements, but the Robot Chicken articles are just bad (WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT combined with WP:LISTCRUFT), and I see no potential whatsoever. For "A Piece of the Action", I found nothing reliable on the first two Google pages, and not a single hit on Google News/Scholar/Books. I nominate this episode article as a test to see where consensus goes, and intend to merge/redirect/AfD/do_nothing_with the remaining RC episode articles accordingly. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Whether the current article is good or bad is besides the point. The only relevant question is whether the subject deserves an encyclopedia entry, and like any other widely watched movie or best selling book, the answer here is yes. The article itself should and will be improved with time. Owen× ☎ 20:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This episode is neither a widely watched movie nor a best selling book, so your comparison is lacking. What do you want to use to improve the article when no reliable sources exist (as seems to be the case)? – sgeureka ^t•c 20:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary; more people watch this TV series than read the books on the top of the bestselling books list. The comparison is conservative, if anything. Owen× ☎ 23:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
So you'd argue the October 10, 2008 issue of the New York Times should get an article because The New York Times has a circulation of a million? Sorry, that's not how notability works on wikipedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Sgeureka, there's no reason to get snotty. I've been here at least as long as you have, and probably closed as many AfDs as you have participated in. We both know WP:N inside and out, and the popularity, longevity and number of cultural references to a mainstream media work does imply notability. Robot Chicken episodes will be rerun in syndication for years to come, and episodes and themes in them are already being references by other works (e.g., Family Guy). While this specific episode may not have the enduring importance of The Satanic Verses or Fahrenheit 9/11, it is a well-known staple of our culture. I don't think having a separate article is unreasonable. Owen× ☎ 17:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I came across as snotty; that was not my intention. So will you please point me to the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (nutshell of WP:N) for "A Piece of the Action" so that we're no longer running in circles? Because, as I already stated in the nom, I was unable to find any. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough; without much effort I was able to find one on IMDB's Alien vs. Predator article. A quick search returns numerous other references for that Alien vs. Predator chess match, but I don't have the time to sift through the bulletin boards and blogs to find the reliable secondary sources, nor to go through the other bits in that episode. There are 60 episode articles here, and it will take time until all are properly referenced. Merging them all into one article will kill this effort. Owen× ☎ 18:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
As you likely know, IMDb is not a reliable source and can't be used for anything other than cast lists (the rest is user-generated). Plus, if I read this particular IMDB page correctly, "A Piece of the Action" spoofed "Alien vs. Predator", a sign that Alien vs. Predator is notable, not the other way around. As this AfD concerns only one episode, interested RC editors just need to demonstrate the notability of "A Piece of the Action" at this time. The notability of the other 60 RC episodes is a question for later, after this AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete — Aside from the the WP:IDONTLIKEIT tone of the nom, article fails Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. There also exist no verifiable sources establishing why this episode may be notable. MuZemike (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete and set Redirect to Robot Chicken. There is no special notability outside the series or that universe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - The episodes does not establish notability and it is very unlikely that it ever will amount to anything. TTN (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge into an episode list. I can't speak for all the RC episodes, but I can't find any RS for any of this episode, but I can for the season. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
If TTN is calling for it to be deleted, it must be completely worthless. Delete. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 12:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Still Hungry - Enjoy Sessions

Non-notable bootleg album. No sources provided, nor does it look like any sufficient ones exist. tomasz. 18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete: If someone can prove enough notability for this, they can re-create with that. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. kur ykh 05:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Gap Girls

This character article does not establish notability independent of SNL. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge somewhere SNL skits? I don't know the target. Plenty of sources out there in books and news. Most trivial, some not. But I don't see any real hope for this being a good article at any point. Just not enough depth. It is interesting that Motley Fool mentions this skit in terms of things that impacted the Gap's sales. Trivial mention, but certainly real world. Eh... Hobit (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge or Redirect to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches where characters have notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
'merge as a sentence or two--I don;'t think the quote of sample dialog is encyclopedic content. DGG (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. kur ykh 05:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lane Maxwell

This character does not establish notability independent of SNL. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge or Redirect to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches where characters have notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Merge I don't see that any except the most famous of these sketches is appropriate for a separate article. DGG (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Recurring_Saturday_Night_Live_characters_and_sketches. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nick Burns, Your Company's Computer Guy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nick Burns, Your Company's Computer Guy

This character does not establish notability independent of SNL. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge or Redirect to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches where a 5-skit character has notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete. Recurring_Saturday_Night_Live_characters_and_sketches is a list of hundreds (a guess) of characters, so it's not practical to merge there. But I'm not convinced that every minor recurring character needs to be featured on Wikipedia either. VG ☎ 13:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why must a character be major to be in a list of recurring characters? IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 15:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches, as per other recurring characters without their own userpage. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 15:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Fuck that, the article stays!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tarzan, Tonto, and Frankenstein's Monster

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tarzan, Tonto, and Frankenstein's Monster

This character article does not establish notability independent SNL. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge or Redirect to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches where characters have notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Article suck. Delete. Yeah, it was a funny recurring skit, but not worth an article. The article's creator, who, thankfully, remains anonymous, ruined the joke anyway -- the skit was called "Christmas With Tarzan, Tonto and Frankenstein", with Frankenstein in large letters. None of the SNL writers were nerdy enough to say "Oh, Frankenstein wasn't the monster's name". The painfully humorless description of the joke as "sort of holiday greeting in the pidgin English style previous portrayals of the characters had made famous" kills any mirth this might have been generated back in 1990. Mandsford (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep (or merge per MichaelQSchmidt). If the article "sucks", it needs to be improved, not deleted. Owen× ☎ 20:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It's still not worth its own article. This routine is nothing more than one of the hundreds of skits that have been seen on SNL over the last 33 years. Granted, there have been some very notable routines that started on SNL and then achieved notability beyond the television show. This isn't one of those routines. Merge would be alright, if it isn't already mentioned somewhere there already. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. This non notable characters don't need a individual article in Wikipedia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Motivational poster

Doesn't seem to be expandable beyond a dicdef. Only sources are an ep of The Simpsons and an article in the Onion, neither of which really add anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn sources added. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep per major improvemets. Nice job!! delete as Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
DELETION... Less is More A good article could be written about this type of poster, which usually has a conversation-starting picture, a word, and some cliche that is supposed to inspire office employees (example "TEAMWORK" followed by "We're all in this together"), and it's still not impossible that that would happen. This article dates from the "Simpsons days" of Wikipedia, when a page frequently had a reference to "The Simpsons" or "Family Guy". I'd reconsider if someone wants to take a shot at improving the article, but if it hasn't happened in two years, I'm not expecting anything this week. Mandsford (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Time to reconsider, Mandsford: since you left your comment, UncleG has placed tons of obviously reliable sources on the article, making it quite suitable and a fine example of a short Wikipedia article. Notability is now demonstrated. Nyttend (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stones (rapper)

Commenters beware, this article is deceptively referenced. The artist in question fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. Blogs, youtube, myspace, et cetera are not acceptable sources for biographies of living people. JBsupreme (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: Biography section removed as a copy/paste of this. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I am the creator of the article in question and feel like I am being treated unfair. I understand that Wikipedia frowns upon copyright law violations but at the same time I frown upon being accuse as a law-breaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HipHopDoc (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Then don't break the law, and be thankful that others have politely fixed your mistake. Delete for failing wp:music policy. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete--no notability that can be independently verified--just blogs, MySpace, etc. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails a number of WP:MUSIC criteria as well as the more general notability and verifiability ones. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Couldn't find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Given that the creator of the article is fairly new to Wikipedia, however, I think some of the comments towards them have been a little WP:BITEy.--Michig (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you're referring to the responses toward the copyvio, I see nothing wrong with them. We don't take the enforcement of copyright law seriously enough here, in my opinion. :-( JBsupreme (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Protest Stripper

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete comic figures without an individual personal name are most likely to be notable, except in very exceptional cases. .It would be much better to enrich the content of the very sparse main article The Underground (TV series); I have no idea if this particular one is even significant enough to be mentioned there.. DGG (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete or Merge to The Underground (TV series), as no notability outside that series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete No coverage in reliable sources (that can be sussed out of a search with confounding terms removed). Protonk (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete since there is no notability. (Even DGG thinks the article must be delete LOL). -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G12. No objection to User:Eastmain recreating the page from the temporary version that he has written but it really could do with some substantive content first. TerriersFan (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Berean Christian High School (Fairview Heights, Illinois)

Non-notable grade school, fails notability ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Article has now been tagged as a significant copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Probably would've been better to speedy it, but its here now so let it be decided. —Ceran-elda (Fly!) 18:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - speedy on what basis? There is no speedy cat for schools. – ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is it a High School or a Grade School? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: From article history - K-12. – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Response Thanks for clearing that up as the nom called a grade school and I thought I was missing something. Being a high school, though associated with all lower grades, makes a difference. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep I guess. K-12 school. Looks like a copyright problem though, so may have to go... Hobit (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Please see Talk:Berean Christian High School (Fairview Heights, Illinois)/Temp for a non-copyvio version. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep and tag for improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Doesn't seem notable to me either but the references available confer that it is so it's a keeper. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks

Only a "brief" flurry of "info" after it got a Yahoo! "pick". Doesn't "seem" very "notable" at all, what with "only" two "sources". Ten Pound "Hammer" and his "otters" • ^{("Broken" clamshells • Otter chirps • "HELP")} 18:06, 9 October 2008 ("UTC")

Delete. Damn right! Plrk (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep per sources offered. Delete as the brief flurry of coverage has died out. Though one might argue that notability is not temporary, as the nom points out... this article lack sufficient WP:RS to show a true notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
"Delete" - A not particularly "notable" blog that gives itself to obvious "jokes" in any discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment The blog itself is not notable. The annoying practice of unnecessary use of quotation marks on signs ("Please" Pull to Next Pump) is something that many have noticed, and its referred to (as is the link to the blog) in Quotation mark, so "even" a merge isn't necessary.Mandsford (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - per significant coverage. [10][11][12] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Peregrine_Fisher. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep--sorry Hammer, and your otters, but I believe in the blog's notability, even its purpose. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, a one of blip in interest on a slow news day does not make this notable - all because something appears in a newspaper once, doesn't make it encylopedic.Yobmod (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not news nor for processing news stories, the website itself fails WP:WEB as well as the majority of notability points, it is unencyclopedic and an unlikely search term. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Sources span over one year, so it's not a flash in the pan news story. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Two of the sources are only passing or non-significant mentions; only the AJC would give notability by itself. So it's notable. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, covered by the Los Angeles Times, Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Washington Herald, The Washington Post, Salon and featured on Yahoo!. --Pixelface (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice towards later recreation if at some point the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Endgame: Singularity

The notability of this game isn't apparent, and the first thing on the game's home page, after the Google ads, is "I am currently looking for a job (willing to relocate as needed). I am skilled with both Python and Linux, along with assorted other languages. Feel free to contact me using the username evilmrhenry at this domain." I think the article may be more about attracting publicity than about benefiting Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING. Ward3001 (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Question Might the use of these allow the article to be made encyclopedic? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Having a few hundred Google hits does not confer notability nor make something encyclopedic. I can Google my name and get at least 100 hits; if I worked at getting my name on websites, I probably could increase that to several hundred. I don't have a Wikipedia article, nor should I. Ward3001 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn ~~Provisional delete~~ as I cannot find any information in reliable sources to verify the content of this article. Wikipedia cannot publish articles without being confident in their veracity. I will reconsider if substantial reliable coverage is found. the skomorokh 19:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawing comment as sources have been provided and I am not knowledgable enough to assess their reliability. the skomorokh 11:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Considering that the page was created by a user who has been active since January on a number of articles, and that the article itself is just a bare bones description of the game, the fact that the developer is touting his services on the homepage has little bearing on whether this is spam or not. I don't see any, just a stub without sources demonstrating notability. As far as that's concerned, there are two decent sources, Jay is Games and Play This Thing (a site ran by Greg Costikyan) here and here. Someone another 23:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cited, there's reception information in both which can be used to create another section. Someone another 23:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it started to sink in on me today that this is the game's home page and it's some guy's hobby page, not a slick commercial page. I'm relenting.—Largo Plazo (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep — looking at the article, it seems like that the WP:SPAM problems have been fixed and two sources referenced. However, they aren't the best sources, and it needs more to avoid deletion, unfortunately. MuZemike (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete: sources just aren't gonna cut it, although the article has improved. Still need something from a reliable source, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and standards of editorial review. Not sure that "Jay Is Games" fits the bill, although I'm open to discussion. Randomran (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of citations from mainstream sources. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

United Nations Music Appreciation Club

A non-notable, significantly non-influential private music lovers' club located inside the United Nations. However, I might consider rescinding the nomination if evidence is presented to show the club appreciates the music of my favourite group, Papa Bear and His Oompah Band. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete For something founded in 1970, you'd think 38 years of existance would have created a bit more online than this or this. Fails even the most liberal interpretation of WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete This topic is only of interest to a select few,and has little encyclopedic interest BMW(drive) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 03:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Boach

More neologism shenanigans. Oh, all of this AfD work is soooooo boach! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Belongs in Urban Dictionary not Wikipedia. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable protologism. — neuro^(talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not Urban Wiktionary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and certainly not an urban dictionary. Fg2 (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete...this boaching boach of a boach. RockManQ ^(talk) 22:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
If that's not enough deletes, here's another one: Delete. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Not even valid for a wp:dicdef. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete — WP:DICDEF and WP:SNOW. MuZemike (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. A dictionary definition that doesn't even bother to include a useful definition. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 03:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

School of the undead

To its credit, it sounds like a damn fun movie. To its discredit, however, it doesn't pass WP:MOVIE. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:MOVIE. Send me a copy, mind. — neuro^(talk) 18:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Search for notability hampered by their being a role playing game of the same name. [13]. However, including the writer's name [14] finds at best only trivial mention... and lots of blogs. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, the report card is in and it looks like...a big F for WP:MOVIE. RockManQ ^(talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete 2 Thumbs down for a non-notable flick. Delete it quicker than the amount of time it spent in theatres BMW(drive) 23:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails MOVIE, no relevant references. SkierRMH (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Italian supercentenarians

This is a list of excessively elderly Italians. I am sorry, but I don't see the notability of this entry. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete That, and it's likely to fluctuate from month-to-month as people get older and others die. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Alone, that's a very unactionable oppose. Are yuo saying that we should delete any article on ITN because it changes so much. Best, —Ceran [speak] 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  - To clarify, I think any list of supercentenarians, regardless of nation, inherently fails WP:NOTNEWS. Remember, not everything covered by RS's is Wikipediaworthy, and simply living long is not a particularly encyclopedic attribute. I am not so naive as to believe this is current consensus--I have seen few arguments based on WP:NOTNEWS succeed lately, yet it remains our policy and should determine the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete --otherlleft (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that if you had left the article for longer than 14 minutes after its creation before nominating it for deletion, it might have developed into something like list of French supercentenarians or list of British supercentenarians? Uncle G (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would think those articles should be considered for deletion as well, for the above reasons. --otherlleft (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
'Close, & Renominate after a week or so if not improved; keep for now. This kind of rush to assume a article cannot be made is not fair to contributors.DGG (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Close per comment by Uncle G and renominate if it does not improve. Patience is a virtue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep although closing the discussion would be appropriate as well. I honestly don't see anything wrong with nominating an article within 14 minutes after it has been posted, rather than making a nomination later. The author of the article chose, wisely, to put in a lot of work before posting it. The nominator raised a valid point as to whether the topic is notable; as Uncle G's response confirms, keeping track of supercentenarians (who have lived at least 110 years) has been an ongoing project on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete - fails RS and V. -Kittybrewster ☎
Keep Although the article isn't the best verified at the moment, it could well become verified: supercentenarians are often notable (if nothing else, because the media tend to cover people who have lived so long), and it has quite well-defined criteria. To answer Jclemens: this article includes already-dead people, so the only maintenance for the death of a person on the list would be to note their death; while there's a template (used near the top of the British list, for example) that automatically updates their ages daily. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep – the topic is certainly notable and it's not clear why Italians have been picked from Category:Lists of supercentenarians. The British list includes quite a few sections (at the end) for people whose individual articles were afd'd and merged. Occuli (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral. Obvious good faith contribution and actually kind of interesting. My major concern would be how this article would stay up to date. Would a section have to be added for "deceased" Italian supercentenarians and as they die they are moved there? Over time, wouldn't that section become large and less useful? --Quartermaster (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, as you can see with the British and French lists, dead people on the lists are simply noted as being dead; it's no less helpful to have information on past supercentenarians than it is for living ones. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, (sorry Eco)...I don't think you should of brought it here right after it was created. ~~Give it a week month or so, then bring it back~~. RockManQ ^(talk) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep valid topic and common article type here that appears to have concensus for notability. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not recognised as a valid argument for keeping an article. And there is no policy requiring that X-number of days or hours need to pass before a new article is put up for AfD -- the argument for keeping the article because it is brand new is an appeal to sentiment, not a confirmation of policy. Thanks.Ecoleetage (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't being used as a reason to keep, but certain classes of articles ARE considered notable by concensus, such as Places (city, village, etc.), High Schools (and higher), and in this case, Supercentenarians. Precedent is not the same as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when it is based on previous concensus. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, and I side with User:otherlleft that the other lists could easily be held up for AfD inspection -- I don't believe the other lists were ever challenged for AfD, so it isn't so much a case of precedent as having the other lists flying under the radar. Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of World Records and breaking a record for excessive longevity is not synonymous with genuine notability -- particularly when you can compile a list of multiple people who live past 100. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You can compile a list of multiple people who have recorded and published music albums as well. And it may be that the other centurian articles have not been up for AFD because there already exists a concensus that the topic is notable. (implied concensus due to no objections) An AFD is not required to build concensus, and in fact, it is more of a last ditch effort to build one. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. AfD regulars also know that any article that is brought back immediately after a discussion closes in favour of Keep or No Consensus/Keep will almost automatically receive a Speedy Close. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep this one, as at least it is a list and has sources. British and Frech supercentenarians aren't even a list, rather a bad collection of possibly non-notable people. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails numerous policies. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can you please specify which policies and how? This is a discussion, not a vote. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  - WP:NOTE, WP:OR, and WP:V. The article relies upon one outdated source of questionable reliability. There is no need for a list of everyone a single HTM document says is over 110. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete Contains giant amounts of original research, fails WP:N and WP:RS, and fails WP:LIST. A list about people who have lived to be a certain age is non notable and does not deserve a page on wikipedia. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question: how is this original research? If we have their dates of birth and death, it's not original research to say that they reached age 110. It's no more original research than would be an unreferenced phrase "10.549 + 54.379 = 64.928": with maths, it's all deduction. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

- - The original research is the DOB and DODs. There is one source, a questionable 2007 HTM document.
Keep These people are only noteable due to their extreme age 110+, any individual articles would likely remain perma-stubs, so it seems reasonable to put them in a list article. RMHED (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Actually, seems pretty notable in all guises. A list of all these people is helping organize the group as well, so it's not really hurting us in any way. Strong keep. —Ceran (Strike!) 22:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note to closing admin Votes claiming that age equals notability are false. Age in itself is not covered by any wikipedia notability guidelines. Undead Warrior (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Give it a chance. We have established lists of supercentenarians; the oldest centenarian ever is a good article. Give it more time to develop, and then we'll see. -- how do you turn this on 21:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to lolcat. kur ykh 05:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lolrus

AfDs for this article:

Uncategorized, unfocused, no real sources about the actual meme, just blogs and Urban dictionary. Was previously redirected to Lolcat which I think is a lousy idea. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect, while I seem to recall its had some kind of mention in the Time Magazine article on LOLcats (which I don't have a link to and can't verify at the moment, if anyone else can link it, please do just so I know I'm not going crazy), its just not significant enough on its own to warrant its own entry. So I'm thinking a redirect to either lolcat, meme, or image macro, with a few sentences in whichever article covering it. And if necessary, is it possible to salt a redirect so we don't have to go through this again? (Unless of course, somehow the lolrus manages to get enough notability to earn a real article that is). And at least I didn't make the "NOOO they be stealin my redirect!" joke... Until now. Sorry. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Coment These searches [15], [16], [17] seem to show notability may be out there. Have not had time to dig. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect back to lolcat, else delete. Nothing here to build an article around, but redirects are cheap. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Late time the article was nominated for deletion, the decition was "merge", which was never done. Contents was not moved to lolcat article (or was removed from that article), actually poor lolrus was not even mentioned at lolcat article. Plus the meme was still popular years after it appeared. That's why I restored the article. "Uncategorized" is the problem that can (and will) be solved in few minutes. Unfocused? Sorry, I don't quite get it, can you please explain what do you mean? "No real sources" probably means "no reliable sources", and is the only real problem about the article I can think about. I'll work on finding reliable sources and adding them to the article... And please note that the fact that a certain image macro was published at ICHC on a certian date is definitly a source good enough for this article. Netrat (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect back to lolcat, else delete - no reliable sources does matter a bit.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 04:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pathosray

Band fails WP:MUSIC. Most recent album was released by a non-notable label. Others were self released. No refs to support notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The band's album was released by Sensory Records and references can be found on http://www.lasercd.com/

Sensory is a well know publisher within the scene.

Panzerschrek076 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panzerschreck076 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ unless reliable sources are found. There are a couple of reviews online, mostly positive, but not in what I'd call reliable sources. I can't judge Sensory Records' notability, but the band fails the "two or more albums" criterion of WP:MUSIC anyway. Huon (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Change to weak keep due to new sources and a better understanding on my part of the given sources' reliability. Huon (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. In the context of their genre, I feel the references stand up. Here's an Allmusic.com one too just to fill it out a little more. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. There is some notability--heavy metal is not blessed with a plethora of printed magazines or independent journals. The Aardschok reference is plenty reliable, and some of the others should be ranked a bit higher than merely fanzines or blogs. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

God Bless the American Plague

Non-notable album. Poorly written. Fails WP:MUSIC. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete both this and The American Plague (album). Band article is currently up for afd and is not likely to survive, albums fail WP:MUSIC because band does. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Hammer nailed it (no pun intended). Neither is notable. Poorly written isn't a reason, but true. I wish that every time someone put in a reference to myspace.com, they received an electrical shock. This would cut down wp:music violations by 90 percent. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, Pharmboy, I wish every contributor who added poorly written and poorly referenced articles to the pile would get an electric shock! Cause every time someone does, we're all running around discussing and looking for references and all--and that's the author's work. But you do have my blessing re: Myspace... Drmies (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone is a good author, so the short, poorly written stuff doesn't bother me as bad IF it is a truly notable subject. Then if I go and source it, at least I feel like I did something worthwhile. (spent two hours sourcing a children's book series last night, and I dont have kids...ugh.) Hell, I'm not a great author either, I just do what I can when the topic is clearly notable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure--but what I'd like to see is the author spend two hours sourcing it! Were they good? I do have kids :) BTW, more importantly, writing well is part of the game--writing poorly (or speaking poorly) is a surefire way of not getting the attention one perhaps deserves. It is also a way of inviting readers to look for notability, and that's an important step. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete--boy this is unencyclopedically written and non-notable. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The American Plague

Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, no sources, reads like PR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE HOLD ON This is my first attempt at a page and I accept your comments. I'm in the process of editing and adding better sources. Carrina, 9 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrina (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC) — Carrina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
They performed for Bonnaroo [18], and they have been covered in local newspapers: Knoxville News Sentinel [19] [20] and the Metro Pulse [21]. Probably enough for a Keep, unlesss you don't consider the Metro Pulse a reliable source (it's the "alternative" weekly paper).Wkdewey (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep sources added. Lead played for a prior notable band. Has 4 albums. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Newly added sources show that this band passes WP:MUSIC. Amazinglarry (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cybalism

Promotional article about a non-notable philosophy. Bringing it here after declining an A7 speedy. Sandstein 16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete I flagged it A7 when I saw that the website for the philosophy/book does not exist and points only to the web forum. The web forum has two registered users, and two posts. A Google search for Cybalism did not turn up any obvious sources that would speak to notability. Newsaholic (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- The website does exist, and content for it will be added very shortly - the Forum is a stopgap. The reason for the lack of users/postings is the forum is only 24 hours old. Suggest you follow the link to the Gnosis website I provided as well. The book is almost complete and will be published shortly. Cybalism is spreading primarily by word of mouth and as such it won't be up on Google yet. The Internet is not the only source of notability. Splorkweasel (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete True, the internet is not the only source of notability. However, this isn't notable either on or off the internet... the linked forum has 2 members! No, that's not a typo. Two. T-W-O. Two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Appears they spent more time on their logo than their philosophy. Any article that starts out with "[topic]is a new [whatever]" is pretty much a slam dunk as not notable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete--no notability whatsoever in a not very well edited article. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you guys even still discussing this? It seems to me from such childish comments as "the linked forum has 2 members! No, that's not a typo. Two. T-W-O. Two", "Appears they spent more time on their logo than their philosophy" and "a not very well edited article" show quite clearly that Wikipedia editors singularly fail to leave their egos on the doormat. You wield your "power" over what lives and dies with a biased hand, aimed more at massaging your own manhoods that giving the users of this site the information they want. Delete the article now, and while you're at it, delete my account as well. I want nothing more to do with wikipedia - my eyes have been well and truly opened. I have to thank you at least for that. Splorkweasel (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I was massaging my womanhood, thank you very much. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note Holy cow, sounds like someone needs someone else to rub something. For a bunch of philosophical, new age types, you guys are pretty uptight (both of you). You're harshing our buzz. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note sexiest AfD ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete No references external to the group, no indication or assertion of notability. Come back when there's more evidence of notability. JASpencer (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction)

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

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

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

This article attracted my eye as strikingly differing in style from the rest of wikipedia. Since I am not an expert in arts, I placed a number of tags for cleanup and deleted redundant categories. The author reverted these edits several times. For a month no one else was interested in fixing the page. Therefore reluctantly I decided to do something by myself. I did a bit with the top, but when I proceeded further, I was surprized to notice that apparently thorough references do not discuss the painting in question at all ! Instead, they support general discussions about arts, gynecology, etc. Neither the long bibliography has any relevance. So I used google and was further surpized to find that "gyn talk" -wikipedia "keith fox" gives a mere 7 hits. Therefore I conclude that the page must be deleted as rather nonnotable. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete in all but the rarest of cases, creative works (songs, fanfiction, artworks, etc) by non-notable people are not notable enough for articles. Also, it takes no great effort to debunk the article's claimed "sources" either, as pretty much all of them are books published long before these paintings even existed, and thus are highly unlikely to discuss the paintings themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete an elaborate essay based loosely on a non-notable artwork. Essentially OR, & this is not the pace for it. It could happen that someone enters an article on an artwork before they think of entering the one for the artist, though--that's not all that unusual, & we usually suggest reorganizing the article to be about the artist. Butthere is not the least indication that either of these are notable. There would need to me major exhibitions or third party published reviews .DGG (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC) r
Delete--yes, the bibliography does not confer notability on the topic. Not a bad term paper for an art appreciation class, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete The article does not establish how its subject matter meets Wikipedia notability requirements. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete I don't see from the article or the supplied sources how this meets our notability requirements. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 05:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Seems to be of minor importance. Article seems a coatrack for gender and medicine issues. JFW | T@lk 09:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per deleters. Doesn't meet notability standards. Johnbod (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is original research that fails WP:V. freshacconci talktalk 10:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete This article seems disengenuous at best.....please let it go..Modernist (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. There aren't enough independent, third-party reliable sources available to write a proper article. We need published reviews by legitimate art critics to meet Wikipedia's basic WP:V requirements for an article on this subject. Joseph Levi, I see that you're a new editor. You may not know that what we mean by notable is "How much information has already been published about this?", and not "How important is it to the world?" Something that is incredibly important, but for which we can find no, or very few, independent, third-party reliable sources at this time is always deemed non-notable for the purpose of meeting Wikipedia's inclusion policies. If proper reviews/art criticism becomes available later, then we can certainly re-create the article at that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Notice I moved extended comment and response from the author of the article and others to Talk for this AfD. I've tried to explain the situation to him on his Talk page, including what he can do that might serve his purposes and perhaps ours. --Abd (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 as recommended by two comments here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Brittany rice

Notability concerns here. The only thing I can see here that would possibly make this person notable is graduating cum laude from a college. The rest just seems like a resume. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete - there is no notability, and the author's user name matches the subject name. I.e. the author just posted her own resume. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete no notability, and Wikipedia is not C:\My_Documents Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rational data industry model

Non-notable model - essentially pure spam. (See also digital property framework another advert for the same company.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, shameless self-promotion. Owen× ☎ 17:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete in total agreement with the nom. The article reads just like an advert bragging about its product. If a neutral pov can be established and the article sourced per WP:RS than I can reassess my opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Wow. Shameless is too mild a word to describe this. Self promotion, uberspam. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Swara Sampada

Promotional article for an organisation offering singing lessons. No real claim of notability, only 122 google hits, including Wiki mirrors. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

delete nonnotable. Google gives 63 hits without wikipedia. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete A small private organization, unless it has been mentioned in print, has trouble being notable for our purposes. The hit at [22] is a mention in an event calendar. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as currently failing notability through WP:Corp. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Editors can feel free to discuss possible redirects separately. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yii Framework

Contested prod. Non-notable software with no reliable sources provided and none found. TN‑X-Man 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

del no evidence of notability. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
delete, or merge to Web application framework. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
keep, it is the successor (same developer) of the well-known PRADO framework. Ekerazha (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to PRADO or Web application framework. --Walmwutter (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is its successor but it is a different product from PRADO, so redirection to PRADO isn't a good idea. Ekerazha (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to PRADO assuming the lineage is correct. Honestly, web applications frameworks are a dime a dozen, and I'm not convinced PRADO passes the notability test either. VG ☎ 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Dzied Bulbash. I don't see how it's related to PRADO. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The iProfile

Fails WP:WEB; no non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

delete as seeming like an advertisement and not showing notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete: I've started looking at and cutting the references in that article--there was nothing there to begin with. Nothing but advertisement, that is, fluff. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Advert and does not assert notability. Mvjs Talking 02:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per the above and to avoid re-listing. Nothing more to add. VG ☎ 21:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dahili Network

While this information may or may not be factually correct (a Google search turns up nothing), the article is so poorly written that it defies attempts to recast it in standard English WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. It's unsalvageably incoherent. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. No, this is not what Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G1 means by "patent nonsense". The term explicitly excludes "poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material, hoaxes, etc." I have tried to clean up the text so that it makes more sense. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The claims made in the article are intriguing, but this Google News archive search doesn't turn up anything useful. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete I can't quite understand the article: it isn't made clear if this is something actually in operation (which may be notable), or whether it's simply proposed and in-development (which probably isn't notable yet). Lack of reliable sources is also a concern. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete... though it is a fairly nice description of a Local Area Network in Turkey. I don't see its notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. There's a section on language--there needs to be some language work. A section on Gerontology? Drmies (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete Its hard to judge because the citations and external links are not any help. Doesn't seem notable, or encyclopedic. Sentriclecub (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Cardboards

AfDs for this article:

Taking this to AfD rather than prod because this may be a case where sources will be pre-intertoobs. Claims of notability are iffy: early band in Pittsburgh punk scene and pioneers of a technique of unknown notability. One album released, no claims of charting or awards. No entry at allmusic, no reviews found at metacritic. Gsearch turns up tons of false positives, and my googlefu isn't narrowing it down well enough. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I was a student at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh from 1980 to 1983 and I saw them perform numerous times and I loved this band. It was a very original band which was at the same time very much of the moment, and it belongs in any history of punk rock and new wave music. Not everything interesting happens in New York. Erxnmedia (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Appears to also have been deleted before. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete no evidence they pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep – I've added one reference that helps to verify a little of the article content: that the band was part of the early Pittsburgh punk scene, that the drummer was the subject of a documentary, and that members went on to be part of The Cynics and Hector in Paris (oops, that one is a red link at the moment). Like the nominator, I am cautious when it is a band that likely would have had most of its press coverage pre-Internet. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 05:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

TCM - Time Critical Manufacturing

Software product by a redlinked company (deleted through PROD); article submitted by the marketing manager of the company. While the Milwaukee Business Journal reference is valid, I'm not finding other reliable, independent (ie not a press release) sources in gsearch or gnews. The MBJ article doesn't give me enough to rewrite without the advertising copy, previous prod has been contested, so here we are. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as an advertisement that fails notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as an ad--I hate ads on Wikipedia, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE (partially) IN CAPS. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep, no argument for deletion given, original afd tagging by anon edit-warrior clearly made in bad faith. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce

In my opinion, this AFD is part of an on-going edit war between an anon with a floating IP and other users. (The edit summary of an editor removing the AFD reads, "someone needs to study the correlation between vandalism and ethnicity.") I got dragged into this mess declining a speedy deletion added by the anon. He'd also added an AFD tag but failed to complete the discussion subpage and list the AFD. I removed both. He re-added both with an admonition to not remove deletion tags. I left a testy edit summary suggesting he complete the process and again declined the speedy. Another editor removed the AFD tag. The anonymous editor reverted but again did not complete the process. Pro forma nom, as I can't leave this hanging in Limbo any longer. See my "keep" below. Dloh cierekim 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dzied. Should have crossed this particular "t". I guess I have to speak for the anon who started this. I'll assume good faith and say the anon feels the subject is not notable in that it lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. That the subject lacks inherent notability. That the sources I listed are deficient. As pointed out below, he could not complete the process, and may not have realized that he was not finished. Unfortunately, I've not been able to establish a meaningful dialogue. Dloh cierekim 16:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if an anon refuses to talk, a proper solution IMO is to protect the article from anonymous (since the IP is floating and it cannot be blocked for disruption), rather than to drag other people into wasting their time. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Constructive edits are being made by anons. I'm assuming good faith because there may be some language barrier there. ACheers, Dloh cierekim 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors without accounts cannot complete the AFD process, because they are prohibited from creating new pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. It probably wasn't the best approach to demand that someone complete a process that they are barred from completing. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor certainly could have asked for help or discussed on talk page, rather than edit warring, as the page history hows him doing. As it went 24 hours without any progress, I went ahead and completed the process. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 15:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Folk songs are probably inherently notable from the start because of their long-term cultural impact. The sort of thing a not-paper resource should include. (If we were talkin' about "mah noble Stewball," I'd know I was on terra firma. ) In attempting to source this, I've been limited by not only language barriers, but by alphabet barriers as well. However, I was able to find a number of mentions on the Internet. The Balkans is a region with a large number of languages, so there may be references I have missed. Hopefully, someone can help me out with the sourcing. So far, the editors of the article have not.

Appears notable--

Other potential sourcing--

"Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce"
"Зајди, зајди, јасно сонце".
News article (in Macedonian) talking about the song and Aleksandar Sarievski. (cached).
8 Google book hits in Bulgarian.
Google scholar hit in Bulgarian. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Found an alternate spelling link connecting this to the movie 300. See that article for a bit more. Dloh cierekim 14:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep sufficient sourcing for notability. Classic folk songs are notable; well-known widespread modern adaptations may be--there is sufficient evidence to show that this one is. DGG (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
speedy keep. No arguments for deletion are presented. AfD is not a venue for wikipedia dispute resolution. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep--this is a fascinating article, and I hope some good (and objective) editing will be applied to it. Maybe a Russian can get in on the action? Drmies (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, the edit warriors have not yet come here to say the article should be kept and why. Dloh cierekim 03:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverting POV vandalism is different to edit-warring. The only reason the vandal wanted the page deleted was because he wasn't happy that his vandalism was being dealt with (and therefore he couldn't express his POV). Balkan Fever 09:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep--This is a most popular traditioanal and antologic macedonian song. --Raso mk (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. The bulgarian POV in this article is needless. They have allready own song "Černej Goro"

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mount Lofty CFS Group. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironbank Country Fire Service

This is a short and unreferenced article about a local fire authority. Grahame (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete and redirect Non-notable rural fire brigade. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Redirect per TravellingCari. As praiseworthy as their selfless efforts may be... I cannot find any non-trivial coverage to show notability. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Mount Lofty CFS Group as it appears to be a part of that group. None of the regional groups are notable on their own, but the main Mout Lofty one probably is. TravellingCari 00:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:ORG badly. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect per above comments - interesting no comment about higher level articles incorporating an individual states rural fire brigades so as to absorb local enthusiasms Satu Suro 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect per User:Travellingcari - probably worth a mention somewhere but a full article at this point is pushing it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC).
Delete just a branch of a statewide fire body, I don't think redir is useful, we don't create redirs for every shopfront of every Big W, Walmart etc. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. My nom was obviously poorly researched. To my credit, the articles are not new, yet are most all wholly unreferenced, giving no indication of notable singles, albums or members. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

M.O.P.

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Including with this nom:

Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions and list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Appears notable, two major releases- one on Koch, one on Colombia. Also, I know google isn't a reliable indicator, but it pulls up over 100,000 hits on Ante Up alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.10 (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - significant chart activity in Billboard, also achieved two top 10 hits in the UK in 2001 (offline source: The Book of British Hit Singles and Albums), Google News search shows coverage in Rolling Stone, Music Week and several newspapers - group definitely seems notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Two UK Top 10 hits, plus major-label releases. It isn't hard to find reliable sources either, look here and here. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep and expand several chart singles, releases on notable labels, seems good enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Weird nom. Firing Squad (1996) is considered a classic, e.g. by Brian Coleman in Check the Technique, 2nd. ed., New York: Villard, 2007. ISBN 978-0812977752 pp. 276–288 (a whole chapter) while Peter Shapiro (who prefers First Family 4 Life (1998) and thinks Warriorz (2000) is better than both) notes that "Ante Up" (a "classic", in his words and in the words of most other people who know about the subject) and "Cold as Ice" were both top ten hits in the UK.(Rough Guide to Hip Hop, 2nd. ed., London: Rough Guides, 2005. ISBN 978-1843532637 pp. 259–261.) The greatest hits compilation 10 Years And Gunnin' (2003) is available on Columbia. 86.44.23.229 (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep passes MUSIC on strength of chart hits alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 03:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Almighty 12th street players

Non-notable alleged "gang," no sources proffered, reliable or otherwise, article untouched since creation. A Google search turns up 32 hits [23], exclusively from this article and various other Wiki mirrors and self-editing sites; plainly someone wants to claim the gangsta mantle, but the world hasn't yet noticed. Fails WP:ORG, WP:V. Ravenswing 13:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete possibly a hoax, definitely unverifiable. All the 32 google hits mentioned above appear to be Wiki mirrors and such, and absolutely nothing resembling a reliable source. I find it hard to imagine that a gang could exist since the 60s and not get mentioned by somebody, somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless notability is verified. I've searched a fair bit and haven't come up with a great deal; the Chigaco PD don't seem to acknowledge their existence, for instance. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Does not qualify WP:NOTABILITY Kalivd (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails the group/organisation/club notability criteria not to mention the unverifiability of most of it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:N. — neuro^(talk) 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, to me it looks like a big pile of WP:OR, fails WP:N. RockManQ ^(talk) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, plain s***. Rory the vandal-fighter (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lumpawarrump

Wholly insignificant character. No citations to third-party reliable sources to establish notability. Entirely plot summary. Redirect to appropriate target -- Chewbacca -- reverted by User:Ksempac since apparently I'm just "sneaky". Bringing it to AfD for community consensus that this Wookiee, marginally significant within the Star Wars universe, doesn't meet the notability threshold for such "detailed" coverage at Wikipedia. --EEMIV (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete or redirect Fails WP:Notability --Megaboz (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Wrong venue There is a way to deal with such reverts, to get community opinion about whether they are justified, and it's WP:Dispute resolution. Afd is not intended for such purposes--it is an abuse of process to bring something here unless the actual intent is to delete it; if a redirect is proposed, then keep arguing for one in the proper place through the various steps. Frankly, if i weren't involved in this topic I would close this right now as "no request for deletion" DGG (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- A redirect is the recommendation before material as an alternative/precursor for AfD. Apparently its notability is disputed. The underlying issue is that this topic doesn't warrant coverage here. Hence, AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have neither conflict with EEMIV, nor interest for this article. I simply want the community to agree on the delete or merge instead of one user doing it all by himself (especially since another user ( RMHED ) asked to go for an AfD before EEMIV redirected the article). About the AfD, i agree with Dzied Bulbash (below), since right now the Chewbacca article has a link to Lumpawarrump and no mention of who he is. Ksempac (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
delete content as an original essay; redirect to Chewbacca (as it is done for xis mother, Mallatobuck ), with short description. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as OR/fancruft and then redirect to Chewbacca. We can easily modify this AfD to just say "Delete this article about a non-notable subject" and not care about where it redirects to. the suggestion of the redirect is to help navigation and to help prevent some attempts at recreation. We can't just assume that because someone disagrees with this outcome that it is a content dispute. By definition, for every article in wikipedia, there is someone who wants to keep the article as is. The existence of that person doesn't dictate which venues can be used in a debate. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete One of many minor SW characters who have unnecessarily overlong articles padded with in-universe fluff. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 07:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Capital Subscription Fund

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism; no sources; almost no Google hits. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as this is not Wiktionary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Seems obscure enough that hardly anyone has heard of this type of fund (under 100 ghits for "capital subscription fund"), so it could have been prodded. Also relisted twice... VG ☎ 08:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Sounds like a neologism to me with the three Google hits. MvjsTalking 09:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Verse 2

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Contemporary Verse 2

Not long enough and non-notable

Delete the magazine is only published to the City of Winnipeg. (From website) Whenaxis (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Where does it say that? I see that it is published in Winnipeg, but that's not the same thing. On the contrary, it says that "CV2 is distributed to newsstands and readers across Canada, the United States and the rest of the big wide world.". The journal appears to have been running continuously for more than a quarter of a century, which suggests notability. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep established literary magazines deserve an article ... is the Winnipeg comment a joke?? Why does it matter where something is published? I can't remember why I started this article now - I probably found some reference to the magazinr somewhere and wanted to find out more about it, but Wikipedia didn't have anything. Of course the article hasn't progressed much since then! Certainly loads of room for improvement, but I think the essential nature of the notability stands. Stumps (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: How many copies does it distribute across the World, valuable information is not being inserted into the article, Contemporary Verse 2, why is it not? 64.231.192.93 (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep--literary journals are notable, esp. if they've been running for that long (that's a feat). I wish the article were expanded. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Final Exit Network. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jana Van Voorhis

There are several reasons for deleting this page. (1) This is a person known for just one event (her death) -- fails WP:BIO. (2) Contributors to the article are now implicated as probable sockpuppets of a banned user known for falsifying sources and content. (3) The article asserts notability on the basis of commentary on the case by medical ethicists, but the one article allegedly about this case is actually about a Swiss case.[24]. In fact, coverage of this case appears to be limited to local Phoenix news media and anti-euthanasia blogs. Orlady (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

keep It's not the death that makes her notable, but the subsequent discussion. DGG (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge or redirect to either Final Exit Network or Hemlock Society, as her death and their involvement is the notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Unpleasant as it is this seems to have been a notable case. I can also see the case for "merge" but decided to vote "keep" since her case does seem to have been widely discussed. Redddogg (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Final Exit Network. Wikipedia is not a place for news reports, no matter how fascinating. This information is better categorized under the organization that led to her death, since thats what the discussion of her was mainly dealing with. Themfromspace (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Final Exit Network. That article is stubby to begin with, and has some difficulty establishing notability had it not been for Jana Van Voorhis. VG ☎ 08:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

exit fart

I have moved all info to a more generic page, this would be PRODed, but someone contested. Natually, I vote Strong Delete'. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete or redirect: All the relevant information has been moved to the Makuta (Bionicle) article, thereby rendering this one superfluous to requirements. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Despite the need for expansion for Bionicle on Wikipedia, I believe this information can be easily included in the main Makuta (Bionicle) article, there is not that much information that requires a new page, in my opinion. Lesovikk1996 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as copyvio of [25]. I write bureaucratese like this for a living, and I can tell from a mile away when someone copy-pastes governmentspeak from a government website into an article. Sandstein 15:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Regional Council of South Ostrobothnia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another local bureaucracy; anything special about this one? Biruitorul ^Talk 03:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep as a sub-national government. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- If Finland were a federal state with sovereign sub-national entities, then it might make sense to have articles on those governments, like we do for (say) Germany. But (except for Åland, for which we do have an article on its government) Finland is a unitary state, with power concentrated at the centre and very little devolution to regional bodies. Moreover, local councils are created by and can be abolished by the national government. (We don't, for example, have articles on too many of the 3000+ county governments in the US, also created by higher authorities - exceptions being very populous entities like LA County or Cook County - which, I might add, actually do some important things.) There's a nice red link under "Regional Council" here - let's delete this and write a couple of sentences about it there. Or, since they all do the same thing, write an article on regional government in Finland. But a stand-alone article on a toothless body is neither helpful nor wise, as someone will come along with articles on its 18 counterparts, and perhaps on similar sorts of county governments elsewhere, none of which would be especially useful to the project. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Governmental body. 94.192.13.95 (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, but as my comment above indicates, is that inherently notable? If so, why? Biruitorul ^Talk 18:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Southern Ostrobothnia — surely the government is a worthy topic to cover in that article, even if it's not a really notable topic by itself, which it isn't. We can always split it out if the government section of that article grows too large for the article. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Take A Worm For A Walk Week

Ok, a little weak but there are some assertions of notability. Having an album mixed by Iain Cook and a split album with DeSalvo (see Idlewild (band)) and another split CD probably isn't enough for notability. If the band members were connected, ok, but split albums probably don't qualify. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete already. No sources, no real notable releases. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete for failing to meet notability guidelines for musicians. Includes absolutely zero secondary sources. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral – The only source I could find was this article in Metro UK. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. gone, clear A7 TravellingCari 00:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Smith (Lismore)

This article was created about somebody who unsuccessfully contested preselection for the Australian federal election, 2007. Clearly not notable. Grahame (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete A7 No evidence of significance provided whatsoever. An entirely non-notable political candidate. Reads like a political advertisement and promotional page. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Waddington

Non-notable entertainer. No reliable sources to show why this person is notable. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER. PROD removed without reason. JD554 (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep He's made numerous TV appearance and won a magic competition, though I'm not sure how notable that competition is. I'd lean to the side of keep for now. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

He claims (it's an autobiographical article) to have made TV appearances. There are no reliable sources to back up any claims in the article apart from the non-notable competition. --JD554 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep as I have just removed peacock, cleaned up, wikified, and sourced the article. His television appearances and award have been verified. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:N, the reliable sources need to be "independent of the subject"—that rules http://www.uk-magic.co.uk (a directory listing written by the subject) and http://www.warble-entertainment.com (the agency he belongs to). The realitydigital.com reference doesn't show that he has appeared on TV and the remainder of the references are for an online competition of very dubious notability. There is nothing in the article that is verifiable to show that he meets any of the criteria at WP:ENTERTAINER. --JD554 (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel as a magician he meets that criteria of WP:PEOPLE, when the "topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Further WP:Ent is only one of the "additional criteria" of WP:PEOPLE that follow the caveat "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Another of these additional criteria... one which precedes WP:Ent... is "Any biograhy", which allows "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them". So, I can only address your statement "competition of very dubious notability", by pointing out that A) The contest spanned the globe, B) He won first place, and C) his win was verified in a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. I will continue to seek sources for his television performances. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Being a magician doesn't make a person "worthy of notice", but being a notable magician would. If the competition was notable I would have expected to have seen something in a national newspaper rather than a local newspaper that covers the area the subject is from. There are still no reliable sources to verify him being a notable musician or the fact the competition is notable. --JD554 (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G3) by KillerChihuahua. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

National skip share week

This seems like somewhat of a hoax. What further reinforces this sentiment is the fact that the event is not-notable, contains absolutely no external links or inline citations along with being orphaned and written in a contextually poor manner. Also user's first contribution. Flewis^(talk) 12:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Could someone check this out, because if a hoax, this may warrant a speedy delete --Flewis^(talk) 12:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax. I fail to believe that a national holiday would receive zero Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete, hoax. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a place for hoax pages. Kalivd (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sonic Edge

Non-notable music developer. Article is written by someone affiliated with the company, so conflict of interest is apparent. CyberGhostface (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is written by affiliation or not this is the wikipedia guidelines I read:
A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.
The article has been edited down to a neutral standpoint. The article is reliably sourced.
I do have an interest in the article though it is not to promote oneself. Just as before I am open to any suggestions on making this acceptable. I have written and edited the page no different from many other company articles I have read on wikipedia.
suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesonicedge (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete are you familiar with the Monty Python song, "Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam". The article may have sources (all primary) and it may be verifiable but COI still remains as the primary editor is still the one with COI. You need significant third party sources. Notability is not met. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has been edited to a neutral standpoint and meets the wikipedia guidelines. Were this spam, there would be text indicating a special sale or discount for example. This is no more spam than is the Lucas Arts or Danny Elfman page on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesonicedge (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not for you to say it is neutral, it is for other editors (ones who have made edits other than to this page and who don't have the page name as their username) to say. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete- all the sources are primary. Fails WP:N. Reyk _YO! 05:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete spam. No third party sources for verification of notability. Themfromspace (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete spam. I just did a google search and there are very few references to this "The Sonic Edge" and those that are there are first party. There appears to also be a Christian music group and a sound card from Philips with the same name. The sound card meets the notability requirements if anyone wants to write that article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 05:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Run (Rock band)

Nonnotable band. Keep having to fix bad wikilinks by original author (see history) and deleting references that are Forums, etc. Being on the radio a little doesn't make you notable. I've tried to clean it up to see if it would be ok, but author keeps reverting to wikilink stuff improperly, etc. so I give up. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP:BAND requires groups to be "in rotation nationally by any major radio network" to qualify via radio. This doesn't meet that or any of the others. tomasz. 12:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Actually, a band does not have to be "in rotation nationally by any major radio network" to qualify as notable, it can hit many of the other WP:MUSIC criteria but that (a great example of this is The Fall), but this band does not meet any of the WP:MUSIC critereon and the articles only attempt at notability is a list of five or so radio stations that the band allegedly gets airplay on. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a band does not have to be "in rotation nationally by any major radio network" to qualify as notable, it can hit many of the other WP:MUSIC criteria. Yes, that is why i wrote to qualify via radio. i.e. to qualify for notability status via the "radio play" criterion of WP:BAND (#11), which is the only one they come within a country mile of being able to claim. i also said the article doesn't meet "any of the others", i.e. any of the other 11 criteria of WP:BAND (#1 - 10 & 12). Please read again. Thank-you. tomasz. 15:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right you are. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that being on the radio a little does not make a band notable. But the band was added to regular rotation on many stations, which meets the criteria for notability. Also fulfilling the criteria is the fact that the bands music was used repeatedly in two different network television programs Road Rules & Battle for Ozzfest. These aren't just claims... They are facts. Thanks for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.81.23 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is "fact" unless it is cited, and nothing is cited here. I reverted yet more bad wikilinks to boot. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not here to argue with anyone. They are facts. I witnessed them. Wikipedias policies may restrict you from allowing the information if it's not properly cited, but that doesn't diminish the facts. I've personally heard the band played in regular rotation on these radio stations recently and many others while the band was on tour in 2005. Please consider that this is a nationally touring act as well (yet another of the notability requirements. That's 3 total, with only one being required). The write up in "Arizona" Weekly Entertainment Magazine about a "Los Angeles" band actually verifies that they are a nationally touring act. Darren Mercier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenmercier (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You would do better to work within the guidelines here to try to keep the article, rather than using an emotional appeal (which is guaranteed to NOT work). A small amount of uncited material is allowed in an article for a while (thus, the reason the FACT tag exists) but in general, Original Research (your personal witnessing) isn't. You can easily shut everyone here up by simply providing enough verification using reliable sources. I never understand why people want to argue instead of just fixing the problem. If it can't be fixed, then that supports the idea of deleting. I probably save one or two articles per week that were overwhelmingly DELETE by first adding tons of citations, THEN saying something in the AFD about it, and watching others change their votes. Its called putting your money where your mouth is. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. "Wikipedias policies may restrict you from allowing the information if it's not properly cited, but that doesn't diminish the facts". Exactly. So till proper cites appear (no sign yet), Wikipedia's policies do indeed restrict us from allowing it. Also the radio criterion doesn't fly as none of the quoted stations are national networks, and an article in a newspaper from a different state to the one the band are from doesn't come within a country mile of proving they have toured nationally. tomasz. 16:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Also note a "Darren Mercier" is the band's bassist. Tho' it could be someone else of that name, of course. tomasz. 16:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation. I am the bassist. I'm not trying win anyone over with emotions. I don't understand how these facts could be more credible if they are coming straight from the source. Still, I don't need sympathy. But I simply don't know what you mean by "citations". I'm not here looking for free advertising. I would love to substantiate these facts for you. Problem is, I'm a musician and probably not as computer savvy as any of you. Perhaps I can have our record label, lawyer and management company send letters verifying these facts. Our first album is signed to a nationwide distribution deal with Sony/BMG. If I can verify this is it cool? But then we're back to me not knowing how to "cite" it. If you can ellaborate on how to properly "cite" these facts, I'll be happy to comply. I've read the policies but simply don't know where to begin. Thanks for your input. I look forward to getting it straightened out. Darren Mercier (The bass player) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.81.23 (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The article really should be written by an independent, third party. As it stands right now, your participation to this point violates Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest and also is strong evidence that this article is an advertisement. It adds more justification for deletion. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia requires that the article is written by someone NOT in the band. You may mean well, but you also have information that is not written anywhere and can't be verified. All encyclopedia material must be verifiable. One of the basic tenents of Wikipedia is that we are not interested in TRUTH, we are interested in that which can be VERIFIED by independent parties (news papers, reputable internet sites, etc.) It is a core principal. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a very clear understanding. Ignorance is no excuse but it was all I had. Perhaps the information will be submitted by an independant when some of the facts are a bit easier to cite. Sorry for being a thorn in anyones side. Remove at will. Darren Mercier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.81.23 (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep. The article seems to have just been created 5 days ago. Understandably the creation of the article by a band member brings up questions however many Wikipedia articles seem to have been started by people close to the subject and at some point they either take on a life of their own or are deleted. Five days seems too short to allow any article to grow, no matter who may have started it.Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per IAR, snow on the main AfD and common sense. Albums/singles from a non-notable and speedied artists aren't going to be notable either. Just because we can't A7 doesn't mean they need to run five days. TravellingCari 03:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Going Back

Delete. Unreleased single by non-notable performer WWGB (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
delete as not notable and crystalball, there are several others out there on this guy, articles and afds...oh boi....PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, unreleased single by an artist who more than likely does not meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per IAR, snow on the main AfD and common sense. Albums/singles from a non-notable and speedied artists aren't going to be notable either. Just because we can't A7 doesn't mean they need to run five days. TravellingCari 03:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

...The Fame

Delete. Contested prod. Unreleased album by non-notable performer. Fails WP:MUSIC. WWGB (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, delete. Nothing even released yet, so can't be judged to be notable yet.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete As per nom not yet released.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Whilst the album itself does indeed not necessarily violate WP:CRYSTAL (or it wouldn't with some sources), the performer is non-notable. — neuro^(talk) 18:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Please add Its Pouring Rain and GHETTO BOI: Good Boy Gone Bad to this, it appears they are busy adding circular articles to make him look more notable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, unreleased album by an artist who obviously does not meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 05:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer Rush (1985 album)

Don't know where this album came from, but it's not mentioned anywhere in any official site or any list of albums I've ever seen. The guy has added in a bunch of references taken from the Jennifer Rush (1984 album) page which do not relate to this album. It could just be a budget release cobbled together from 2 different albums.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Hoax album? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, if it looks like a hoax... RockManQ ^(talk) 21:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Murphy (1965 - )

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 15:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:Bio with flying colors. Did several searches for this gentleman... (Paul Murphy, writer), (Paul Murphy, author), (Paul Murphy, critic), (Paul Murphy, artist)... and despite the common name, if one checks the source text to eliminate the wrong ones, one finds plenty to suport the article. It requires cleanup and wikification, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I have cleaned up the article. Schuym1 (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I'll take a stab at a judicious bit of wikification. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a judicious bit of referencing is a higher priority if this is to survive AfD. I couldn't find anything useful when I searched for his name in conjunction with the titles of his supposedly main works, apart from the fact that they exist and can be bought:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Phil Bridger (talk) 8 October 2008

Did some wikification... and will look into sourcing... but am unsure as to how to handle wikifying his huge body of work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I moved the article to Paul Murphy (author) per WP:NAME. We never list a "birth dash" for a living person, and there was no author article yet. No opinion as to notability. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tentative delete unless MQS or someone can actually post the references to his work that he thinks supports the article. I didn't see any. DGG (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per my searches above. For any notable writer of this age and nationality Google would be able to find substantial coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus of the discussion was to delete, and the sourced coverage of the organization cited in the article appeared to be largely incidental. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Beadling Soccer Club

Non-notable youth football club which has won a few tournaments. Article claims it is the oldest club in the USA but there is no independent evidence to support this. Prod removed by article's creator without explanation. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The 'oldest team in the US' claim is repeated once on WVSPN and again on Explore PA History (note how they both say it is ONE of the oldest, not THE oldest). However, I don't feel this is enough to make this team notable enough for Wikipedia. Third-party sources seem to be rather thin on the ground, consisting mainly of directory listings. That's not to say youth teams aren't always non-notable (Wallsend Boys Club springs immediately to mind), but in this instance, I have to go with the nominator. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep I've gone about rewriting this article in attempts to see if it can be salvaged. Being one of the oldest soccer clubs in America and having a former NFL player playing on the team I think is grounds enough for notability. I've added a few sources and fixed the mistakes, and in general "wikified" it a little bit. Hopefully its easier to see its potential merits now, although it needs expansion. I also found a news article about the Beadling Soccer Club here, but I'm not sure I can use that in the article. --Banime (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- In addition many Penn State soccer members come from there as I've found out (and added and sourced in the article). --Banime (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - The fact that it's one of the oldest U.S. soccer teams is interesting, but I don't think it establishes notability by itself. The fact that notable people have played on the team doesn't do it for me either; are all youth teams that athletes play on notable? I think not. Significant coverage in reliable sources is the general guideline for notability, and the given sources don't provide that; they all have only brief mentions of the club. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - even having produced multiple future professional players would not be enough to render a boys' club notable and this club hasn't even achieved that (only non-professional college players and one solitary pro in a different sport altogether, as far as I can see) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. BanRay 22:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - a 110-year old soccer club in the USA? Article is very well referenced, and I can't think of another club that comes close in age. Notable. Nfitz (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

* Weak Delete' Err...I really, really wanted to keep this one. However, no significant coverage in secondary reliable sources leads me to a weak delete. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Change to weak keep (about 10 seconds later). After rereading Nfitz comments above, I must say, being a 110 year old soccer club in the USA is inherently notable. Article is short, concise and provides a reasonable explanation for such a subject. No reason to delete; subject is verifiable. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, no independent sources showing notability. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N - especially lack of reliable sources establishing notability for this club. --Angelo (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike as G3, non-admin closure. — neuro^(talk) 18:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

American Kid:The Devon Eaddy Story

This appears to be a hoax. I can find no sources for this article. I get ZERO hits on google. JavierMC 07:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as vandalism. Obvious hoax from the text ("It is a biographic film based on a African-American never ever discoverd.The director is a friend of that kid."), and doubly so given that the author's talk page suggests a history of creating articles on nonexistent film projects. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Zetawoof. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

The result was delete. delete. Consensus had coalesced around the non-notability of the radion station. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Frequency (radio station)

This page has already been deleted and recreated: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency 1350 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency 1350 (second nomination). Frequency 1350 has since been cut-and-paste moved to Frequency (radio station) and today I histmerged it. (I undeleted the old deleted edits to bring them along with the histmerge and so people discussing this AfD can see them.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

~~Speedy delete~~ as a recreation of deleted material. Notability and verifiability issues raised in previous deletion debates have not been addressed. — mholland (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Change opinion to delete, per Nyttend, below: I'd prefer to let this AfD run, on reflection. I cannot, however, find any substantial independent coverage for this student radio station. I'm also sceptical that much information beyond the mere fact of its existence can be reliably verified. — mholland (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't speedy delete Both previous discussions seem to be rather lacking in content, especially the first, so I'm uncomfortable with according them too much weight. As it is, I know that radio broadcasting stations in the USA are notable; are UK stations considered otherwise? I'm inclined to keep on this one. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep I'd be inclined to keep this one. Student radio is pretty big here in the UK and this is a pretty funny article. As far as I can tell it sticks mostly to the facts, too. craigelaycock

I would Second That Emotion above, its a very accurate article. Frequency is well known all over the North West of England.ilovelovefrequency —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovefrequency (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per G4. The question here isn't whether the article is funny or student radio is popular, it's whether the subject of this article is notable, which this doesn't appear to be. This is recreation of deleted material.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 03:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Beta Omicron Iota

I started off reverting a blanking of this page, but the blanker, an anon, had included an edit summary which caused me to look more deeply at the article. The anon was correct, this is all unsourced, and when I googled, I could not find anything on this organization other than our Wikipedia article. Apparently, there are some chapters of some frats that are called Beta Omicron Iota, but this does not appear to be them, nor does it appear to exist in the form the article purports. Unschool (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete for being a non-notable frat, also fails WP:Verifiability. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as being unverifiable and quite likely a hoax. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
delete If not a hoax, it sure doesn't have any serchable notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above reasons.--Boffob (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete couldn't find anything to verify this. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, for all reasons mentioned above. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Wow, a two month old fraternity with 5 members. Just crying out for a speedy, isn't it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

John J. McGraw

Delete. On available evidence the subject does not appear to meet reasonable notability or verifiability threshholds for inclusion. Suject is author of a single nonfiction book, published by a small 'independent' press that (going by material at publisher Aegis Press's website) has published only 4 other titles, 3 by this and one other author, plus one likely out-of-copyright reprint of a 1930s book. The publishing house may likely be connected with, or set up by, the author(s) themselves. Discounting the dustjacket blurbs, Amazon reader reviews and 1 or 2 blog mentions, a search in the usual places—GoogleScholar, GoogleBooks, JSTOR, WorldCat, etc—to see if the author or book have been cited, commented upon or otherwise mentioned by notable independent 3rd parties draws pretty much a blank, save for two general book reviews in not-very-prominent periodicals- one in the Journal of Religion and Health, another in Esoteric Quarterly. The 'book of the year' award comes from an otherwise quite low-key magazine ForeWord, a low circulation publ. apparently devoted to titles from small independent publishers. General ghits for the author/book are likewise at the low end of the spectrum. In addition there may well be a WP:COI aspect here, to judge from the article creator's other contribs consisting mainly of inserting links & mentions of the author & book. With no further demonstration of notability in the article, and no disrespect or opinion on author/book intended, ATM I can't see that this article meets N or V criteria for inclusion. cjllw ʘ TALK 04:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

~~Weak Delete~~ his book gets reviews... and so does he...some not trivial. But this seems to be a one-hit wonder. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neither of those searches are specific to this John J. McGraw or his book. Note, among others there's a namesake John Joseph McGraw of some baseball fame, many of those ghits in your searches refer to him, or one of the others on John McGraw (disambiguation). I couldn't see any non-trivial reviews of this author/the book in those searches that I hadn't already pointed out, but maybe I'm missing 'em..? --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  - I withdraw my delete because nom feels this search is not for this book. I was unaware that there were other books by this name written by other individuals with the same name. My bad. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, close to an A7 speedy. There is little or no assertion of notability in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete almost no references, very minor book & not much else. DGG (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Jay-Z vs. Nas feud. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Supa Ugly

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable mixtape which fails WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the track (not a mixtape, it's a single song from a mixtape) is quite notable: MTV, MTV again, on Yahoo Music, a bit (but w/ some non-trivial info of the song) on Billboard.com, Entertainment Weekly weighs in, lyrics are on a BET blog post, New York Times said Jay-Z's mother chastised him for the lyrics of the song, etc. The article is badly sourced, should renamed "Super Ugly" and could be better off merged into Jay-Z vs. Nas feud, but notability is not an issue. hateless 07:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable, but merge and redirect to Jay-Z vs. Nas feud, of which this track is a part. 86.44.28.125 (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Jay-Z vs. Nas feud This song doesn't deserve it's own article for notability reasons and WP:MUSIC, but the content is justly deserved in the article of the album. Themfromspace (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Supa get rid of since it fails WP:MUSIC by itself. Coverage seems incidental: his mom chastised him for it, etc. Presumably merge any info not yet in Jay-Z vs. Nas feud. VG ☎ 10:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep This song is very notable. Been topic of discussion on MTV and BET documentaries covering the feud between Nas & Jay-z. No brainer here. Greyskies007 (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC) — Greyskies007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. also: this is the users FIRST EDIT

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Phil Free

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC policy on bandmembers Ironho lds 02:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Crass is not expanded before debate's end. Keep if an adequate expansion is made. -R. fiend (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete or Merge. The band itself is barely notable (no hits at all on the official UK Charts), but probably just about - certainly non notable individual members.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Crass easily pass WP:MUSIC; I wouldn't describe them as "barely notable". Ironholds (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Europe Today Project

Article is about a non-notable news organization. No reliable sources provided, none found. Author contested speedy and asked for community input, so here we are. I don't see where organization meets the guidelines for notability for either organizations or websites. TN‑X-Man 15:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as totally non-notable. Google gives only one page of hits and most of these are not independent of the subject. Reyk _YO! 01:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - 36 hits on Google, many of which are just refering to this article or are not independent of the project itself, and none of which would be a reliable source. The only reference points to the project's web site. Such a project has a long way to go before it would be notable enough for inclusion. gm_matthew (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

USAG compulsory routines

Wikipedia is not for lists of gymnastics exercises. Tikiwont (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Well, Wikipedia is for lists of gymnastics exercises, in that a comprehensive article such as gymnastics has, and should have, an annotated list of the various forms of gymnastics. However, this is more of a curriculum than an encyclopedic list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I was indeed referring to stand alone lists of specific routines as this one and not to lists of exercises in general.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It seem to fall within the permissible topics for WP:LISTs, as they are outlined in WP:SALAT: this list's topic is well defined and neither too wide or too narrow. VG ☎ 19:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gymnastics -- ratarsed (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep WP:LIST states that lists of exercises are permitted. Maddie ^talk 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 05:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Insense

Non-notable metal-core band from Norway. No refs and misses WP:MUSIC by miles. Delete. ~~SIS~~ 22:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete: I do not see how the band is notable, especially without any cites. This reads like a rockumentary. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 09:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral The article is pretty dire at the moment. Nothing has been done to it for over a year. This not my field at all, but if you search for Norwegian results on Google , quite a lot comes up. "Mainstream" results include:
- feature on TV 2 (Norway) web site
- Aftenposten - some mentions, eg. [26], [27]
- 15 concert listings between 2004 and 2006 on NRK
- Review of "Silent Epidemic CD in Dagbladet
- Insense official web site

I have no idea about specialised labels in this genre but they have at least two albums with Devil Doll Records, a label mentioned in several WP articles, e.g. Toilet Böys, Sonny Vincent, Dying Fetus, Half Man (band), The Napoleon Blownaparts (although for all I know, those groups may not be notable either). They also record for Black Balloon Records and Candlelight Records. Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Update. I've copy-edited and formatted the article and added a few external links/sources. I remain neutral as I don't know enough about the genre or the notability guidelines for it to judge. Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom the band is not notable at all. JBsupreme (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Tuesday (film). MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Meidan-i-Noor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax/spam for forthcoming film. Beyond Wikipedia mirrors and publicity for the film, there are only two Google hits, neither of which are reliable sources. chocolateboy (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Tuesday (film) actually this subject is not a hoax, but an article about the gem that was the object stolen in the film Tuesday (see here). However the article about this fictional gem itself makes no mention of the film... and we certainly don't need an article about the gem that is longer than the article about the film. Let's set a redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I did mention that it's spam for the film (click the Google link), though there's precious little evidence that the stone has ever existed (hence "spam/hoax"), other than one amateur site (two of the four Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors), and, of course, the bulk of the article chronicles the stone's fictional afterlife. chocolateboy (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  - That was a good call, specially since the article itself makes no mention of the film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete/redirect -- I am not absolutely certain that objects of this sort in what appears to be a minor movie are appropriate for even a redirect, though it should be mentioned in the article on the film. DGG (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Warhead"

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains speculation about a proposed but never made non-canonical James Bond film. The only ref is the name of a book. No pages link there. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Never Say Never Again as this was simply an early version of that script, OR Merge with Thunderball (film) as this was a remake of that film (as was NSNA). Sources are available for this (The Bond Files by Andy Lane and other books on Bond), but I don't see a need to have this as a separate article. In the event it's kept, lose the quotation marks in the title (may need a DAB chaser). 23skidoo (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep reliable sourcing should be available, just quickly searching I've found this (quite comprehensive) and this (brief mention)and I imagine there is more out there. The book referenced in the article (The Battle for Bond) also appears to be a reasonable source. Details about the movie/ legal struggles are already included in several Wikipedia articles including Kevin McClory, Thunderball (novel), Thunderball (film) and Never Say Never Again so whether to keep an independent article or have the title redirect somewhere perhaps with a link from this disambiguation page would be an editorial decision. Guest9999 (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep It is important to have information on wikipedia that people would be interested in and fans of James Bond would find this interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyla112 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Lacks reliable sources. miniluv (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep the decades-long legal struggle over this thing has been the subject of enormous media attention and even a book. Notable enough by far. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment- except most of that is covered in the Thunderball articles (or was, last time I looked). 23skidoo (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. --Smashville^talk 03:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing (Film)

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

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

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

Article about a non-notable "film"; seems to be an article about a home project ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 03:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My response to the deletion KEEP As the creator of this article I would just like to say that this film is based on a very notable piece of fanfiction by G Norman Lippert and almost everybody who does know about the work of fanfiction by Mr Lippert knows about this film and Mr Lipperts fanfiction is noted enough to have its own wikipedia page Also the film is NOT a "home project" there are people from around the world working on this film. Luke A Crazyla112 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
KEEP! This is a fan film that is currently in production. There are articles all throughout wikipedia dedicated to other fan films created around various other works. Mr. Sanchez, you need more of a reason to propose a deletion of an article, other than not liking "home projects". Ed, if you want to contribute, how about doing some research and trying to make the article better. As for me, I can't wait to see this, little flick, come November. CampAnawannaDave 01:03, 9 October 2008 — CampAnawannaDave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nom. Has not recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. Crazy, you're welcome to claim it is notable, but neither that nor the notability of the original story makes it so. And Camp, please remain civil in discussions. Personal attacks hold no weight in a deletion discussion or in Wikipedia in general. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Non-canonical fan fiction without any independent coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete I think J.K. and Warner Bros. would have plenty of things to say about this fanfiction ever getting to the film stage, namely within the filling of a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Nate • (chatter) 06:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising in-production fan films based on fanfics. --Pixelface (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment The creators of the JPHEC movie series receive no money or compensation for making the film and the whole film is made voluntary because the film makers love the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyla112 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Lawyers don't differentiate between profit or non-profit for copyright violations. Just ask anyone who has dared to post a fanfiction with Anne Rice characters. Nate • (chatter) 07:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
A noticeable fanmovie is no different to a noticeable fanfiction it just depends on who authorises fan work and who doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyla112 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as fails WP:NF. Covergae in blogs by a fanbase does not count as reliable and verifable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - It makes no difference that this is a labour of love, or that people in more than one country contribute to it; it is not a notable work. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Utterly non-notable fan film. I also question the notability of the original novel; all the sources on its page are trivial. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per the article: "fan movie based upon G Norman Lipperts fan fiction". If this were any less notable, it would create a black hole of non-notability, eventually nullifying the notability of the rest of the universe and causing irreperable harm to the space-time continuum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep because Wikipedia should be a website where people find about new releases (of any kind) and I am a fanatic inclusionist. Xammer (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as NN fanfic production. Precedent holds that fanfic and fanfic films are not notable except in the most extreme exceptions - basically the Star Trek fanfilms that have been nominated for Hugo Awards and feature notable production crew and performers are the only exception I'm aware of. Under the rules that have been set out, unless this is made by a major company, or receives third-party media coverage somewhere (and Wikipedia's 20th Century-vintage rules don't allow blogs), or unless JK herself has authorized it, then there's not much can be done. 23skidoo (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible delete - the very quintessence of non-notability (as well as being an advertisement for blatant copyright violation); the creator is advertising on his userpage for people to come here and "vote" to keep it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep I have read both of Mr. Lippert's well written and notable books and would really like to see this film. I think it is too soon to talk about deletion. Fan made films can easily become well-known. Rather than delete the article, it is possible to "merge" it with the book's page to keep the information available? Lady Hester--Lady Hester (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC) — Lady Hester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You have the cart before the horse. Before being documented inside Wikipedia, things must be documented, by independent and reliable sources, outside of Wikipedia, per our content policies. This is not a vote. Your effort would be better spent getting this film properly documented, by reliable sources, outside of Wikipedia than in trying to stuff a ballot that does not exist. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Snowball delete. Unlike the fic, this has no third party coverage that would indicate notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:NF . Edison (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. There do not appear to be any reliable third-party sources confirming this film's notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Crazyla112: "almost everybody who does know about the work of fanfiction by Mr Lippert knows about this film"--nicely describes the scope of notability. Please close early to stop canvassing action here. Owen× ☎ 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete: no notability that I can find. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Federico Vellani

Non-notable board game designer, who "appears to have withdrawn" and for whom there's no other evidence of notability. See this AfD for a related discussion. Would have bundled but was not aware of this article at the time. Bundling now:

Helmut Ohley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - same series of semi n-n games, no evidence of other notability
Lonny Orgler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gary Mroczka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note I am explicitly not listing those who seem to have other notability. TravellingCari 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing admin, should this end in delete, please note the number of re-directs in the above named article histories. May be a number to take care of. TravellingCari 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete all per prior AfD, and nom. None of these meet the notability requirements. Themfromspace (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - per nom --Az Cold As Ize (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note account above has been blocked as vandalism only. TravellingCari 12:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete all, and seriously consider deleting the list of 18XX games too. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete all per nom, why is this being re-listed over and over? There is a clear consensus on this, from what I can see. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as an article with no substantive content. Article consisted entirely of a list of external links. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

List of image analysis software

Random list of ELs. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 03:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Malaysian coats of arms

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gallery of non-free images. ViperSnake151 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. As the deletion rationale has to do only with copyright-related legal issues, I don't believe AfD is the appropriate place to discuss this article. It can be speedied under criterion G9, or it can be kept. Either way, I believe this is one best handled by Wikimedia's legal team, which should be notified about the existence of this article. I took the liberty of listing this article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 October 4. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Nomination is in 2 parts: "gallery" and "non-free". Galleries of images are often not encyclopedic, so it could be deleted for that reason. Without discussion, it seems a certain fair use infringment though, true.Yobmod (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 03:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The material invites graphical presentation in just this manner. Print encyclopedias traditionally feature plates depicting coats of arms, flags, and the like. If they can do it so can we. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment When a print encyclopedia features “plates depicting coats of arms, flags, and the like,” it either choses images that are in the public domain, or it pays royalties to the copyright owners. These gallery images are not in the public domain, and as a matter of policy Wikipedia never pays royalties.—teb728 t c 20:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep as per Smerdis. Edward321 (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete The use of the images is decorative with no pretense of critical commentary that would justify fair use. As such all but one of them are certain to be removed from the article. Indeed all but three could be summarily removed for lack of a non-free use rationale. With the removal of the images the article will have virtually no remaining content. —teb728 t c 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep as nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete recommendations. TerriersFan (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Georgiana Bruce Kirby Preparatory School

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Prod contested with "Removed prod. Consensus at AfD is that all high schools are notable." I contend that subject be considered for deletion due to the nature of it being a private, for-profit organization which completely fails all general notability tests. Not that it's a conclusive test, but Google has no news articles about the subject. I swear there's no WP:COI here, I just contend that subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. — X S G 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an error in the nomination since this is a non-profit school - see here. TerriersFan (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - sources are available to meet WP:N and this is a high school that educates to Grade 12. TerriersFan (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Could you help the article by adding some of the available sources? I looked but found nothing that would help toward WP:NOTABLE, and I'd vote to speedy keep if notability could be demonstrated. — X S G 04:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - If someone could enlighten me on whether there is a proper process for abandoning an AfD, I'd like to do so. The for-profit versus non-profit nature of the subject causes me to regret having submitted it. It's also kind of embarrassing that I missed something so obvious. — X S G 14:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - no problem, I've closed it for you. TerriersFan (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn per rewrite. Frank | talk 18:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Studio job

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Notability is questionable; the company clearly exists, but independent coverage about the company does not seem to be forthcoming. Frank | talk 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ keep Company has won multiple awards, and is mentioned in published books here [28] and here [29]. Plus, in my opinion Biscuit selected for International Design Yearbook is enough by itself to merit an article. --Megaboz (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article and added some additional sources. I think it satisfies notability now. --Megaboz (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Nadolski

I thought there was enough to avoid a speedy here. Article was created by his production company, however I'm not finding any evidence of notability to back up claims so it's here for discussion. TravellingCari 02:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as several different searches of Google and Google News found nothing to show notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete did the same searches, found the same lack of reliable sources. No secondary sources seem to exist here that demonstrate the notability of the subject. Darkspots (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Chemical Feast

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This book does not appear to meet any of the 5 criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). I have previously prod'ed it, but the prod was removed with the edit summary "famous author, well known book, look for reviews and other refs" - which is factually incorrect. The famous person, Ralph Nader, wrote the introduction, but the book itself is by the relatively unknown Jim Turner, who does not meet criteria 5 of Wikipedia:Notability (books) (The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.) NoCal100 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

that deprod summary was my fault. I read too quickly & was careless enough to think it was Nader. DGG (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep pending further search for reviews. The book , that's the book not the report on which it is based, is in over 1200 US libraries. It was translated into French [30] and into Japanese[31] There is, confusingly, another fairly widely held book with almost the same title but on a slightly different subject of diet in disease, Le Riche, W. H. (1982). A chemical feast. New York, NY: Facts on File. ISBN 9780458954209 DGG (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. A Google Books search shows that this report is very widely cited by other authors. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Digital property framework

Neologism serving as a coatrack to promote a company. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to delete if you like, this is a valid framework with years of research behind it, not designed to promote a company, but rather emerged from a company on the leading edge of the issue, and is provided to promote open standards in dealing with canvas based environments as opposed to intellectual property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlinknecht (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete coatrack, explained using more marketing words that I can handle, and I run a market dept. for a living. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as written. It may be possible for someone experienced in that field AND Wikipedia to actually make it encyclopedic. With respects to Marlinknecht, perhaps you might consider doing sourcing and rewriting? I myself do not have the knowledge as to what is or is not important in that article... but it feels like it has possibilities. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete The content is promotional and unencyclopedic. In addition, the page is a copyright violation of http://digitalpropertyregistry.org/ --Megaboz (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, pure promotional material. Owen× ☎ 14:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. They are also advertising at rational data industry model. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Féile an Phobail. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Draíocht Children's Arts Festival

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Draíocht Children's Arts Festival

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Anything special about this festival? Biruitorul ^Talk 03:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions.
Keep. Yes, it's a Halloween festival for children in Belfast. I added a reference. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, it exists, but does anything set it apart from all the other Halloween festivals? Biruitorul ^Talk 05:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge into Féile an Phobail, which is notable. --Helenalex (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge into Féile an Phobail per Helenalex. This festival is not notable, but the article contains useful, encyclopedic information that is better used in Féile an Phobail. Cunard (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. There is no reason to delete this. It is a festival in it's own right, and has been referenced accordingly. -- Daibh (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- The references show merely that it exists (which no one questions), not that it's notable. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Féile an Phobail, as already suggested above. Delete as second choice only if merge is resisted or fails. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Last student standing

Unreferenced article about a survival contest run by a local radio station. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Radio stations run contests like this all the time. Not notable. --Megaboz (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Question: [32][33] seem to be out there for some expansion and sourcing. Just a flash in tha pan as a "one of many such"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep as this one seems a bit different to the normal one-timer radio competitions (ie seasons, a real prize and show layout etc) --Fred McGarry (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, not even worth a merge to the station. Radio stations hold contests all the time, and this one is as non-notable as the rest, especially given the $10,000 prize mentioned in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Eureka ITEA2 WellCom Project

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because someone asked you to, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be. We welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion.
Remember: This is not a vote. It is an attempt to reach consensus.

(However, please note that in discussions of Wikipedia-related matters (such as policies and guidelines), the opinions of newer contributors may be weighted less than the opinions of established editors.)

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

A European research project. No evidence of notability. The link to the ITEA 2 website - the programme running it - don't work. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

keep - Wikipedia should grant this article existence on the basis of 1. It informs about a real, public/private funded project. 2. It contributes to the dissemination of science and of new technological breakthroughs. 3. It has no profit motive in mind.
keep - First of all I updated the link and now its works. This page is under progress. It is an European Research Project granted by Public Authorities. This project dissiminates its results in the main scientific conferences. -- Emmanuel.marilly (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
keep - no reason why this page shall not be there (other European projects, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSE_QoS_solution, also have their description). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.138.227.11 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Other projects are here, is not a valid reason to keep. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete I could not find any sources to support notability. Only sources found are their own Wiki and internal docs. I also see no valid policy reason contained in the three very similar !votes above. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
keep - I think that this page is useful and can be improved. Therefore, we have to keep it. Job.alu (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

keep The reason for deletion is supposedly missing evidence of notability. A google search with key words "WellCom" and "ITEA" returns about 130 hits, of which about half are relevant, and of these again roughly 1/5 are from non-WellCom sources. Considering that the project has only existed about 1 1/2 year and not been overly active in profiling itself, this visibility is not too bad. In addition, the project has published in and have submitted to international, refereed conferences. The project covers a subject with much industrial and academic activity, some duplication of effort with other research projects should therefore be expected and allowed. The proposal for deletion seems to be justified also by a non-functioning link, this was easily corrected. I do agree that language can be brushed up and the article shortened (e.g. take out the second figure), this should be undertaken by project members if the article is not deleted. (Torbjørn Sund. Possible bias: Working within the WellCom team). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.47.109.183 (talk)

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers." Please read WP:V and explain what sources meet those requirements. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

see below my response --Emmanuel.marilly (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

keep - Notable accodring to definition of notability.

http://www.internet2008.fr/spip.php?article480

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/cf/item-display.cfm?id=146

http://www.atelier.fr/mobilite/10/06102008/mobile-nfc-tv-interactivite-communautaire-projet-wellcom-37254-.html --Alexis Germaneau (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Being listed as an exibitor at a trade show does not establish notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For your information the Information Society Event (above) is not a trade show but a conference with review by a scientific committee.

Please find below a list of WellCom paper:

. M. M. R. Chowdhury, S. Alam and J. Noll, "[Policy Based Access for Home Contents and Services], Fifth International Conference on Soft Computing as Transdisciplinary Science and Technology, IEEE/ACM CSTST'08, October 26-30, 2008 - Cergy-Pontoise/Paris
. S. Alam, J. Noll and D. Roman, "[Semantic Policies for Service Access in Mobile supported Sensor Networks]", Int. Conf. on Advances in Human-oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies, and Services, I-CENTRIC 2008, October 26-31, 2008 - Sliema, Malta
. M. M. R. Chowdhury, N. Elahi, S. Alam, J. Noll, "[A Framework for Privacy in Social Communities]", Special Issue of International Journal of Web Based Communities (IJWBC), Inderscience Publishers, ISSN(online): 1741-8216 ISSN(print): 1477-8394.
. M. M. R. Chowdhury, J. Noll, "[Semantics Supported Access Authorization Based on Decentralized Architecture]", International Journal Communications of SIWN, UK, ISSN: 1757-4439.# J. Noll, S. Alam, and M. M. R. Chowdhury, "Integrating Mobile Devices into Semantic Services Environments" Fourth International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Communications, ICWMC 2008, July/August 2008, Athens, Greece
. S. Alam, J. Noll, and M.M.R. Chowdhury, "Extending Service Oriented Architectures for Mobile Environments", Proceedings of WWRF #20, April 2008, Ottawa, Canada
. N. Elahi, M.M.R. Chowdhury, and J. Noll, "Relation-based Access Control through Semantic Rules", Proceedings of WWRF #20, April 2008, Ottawa, Canada
. N. Elahi, Mohammad M. R. Chowdhury, Josef Noll, "Semantic Access Control in Web Based Communities", In the proceedings of 3rd International Multi-Conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology ICCGI July/August, 2008 - Athens, Greece Published by IEEE CS press (IEEE Explore).
. Gondi, Vamsi Krishna; Lehtihet, Elyes; Agoulmine, Nazim, "Ontology-Based Network Management in Seamless Roaming Architectures" In Network Operations and Management Symposium Workshops, 2008. NOMS Workshops 2008. IEEE7-11 April 2008 Page(s):60 - 65
. Lehtihet, Elyes; Agoulmine, Nazim , "Towards Integrating Network Management Interfaces" In Network Operations and Management Symposium, 2008. NOMS 2008. 11th IEEE/IFIP 7-11 April 2008 Page(s):1 – 4
. Nguyen-Vuong, Quoc-Thinh; Agoulmine, Nazim; Ghamri-Doudane, Yacine , "Novel Approach for Load Balancing in Heterogeneous Wireless Packet Networks" In Network Operations and Management Symposium Workshops, 2008. NOMS Workshops 2008. IEEE 7-11 April 2008 Page(s):26 - 31
. L. Trappeniers, M. Godon, L. Claeys, O. Martinot, E. Marilly, "Cross-Media Experiences: Ambient Community Interactions in the City", to be published in the Bell Labs Technical Journal, v13-2 – Summer 2008

Do you think that work published in IEEE is not notable ?

--Emmanuel.marilly (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

keep - Notable according to definition of notability and with more than 130 hits in google. I agree with the previous keep messages. Bertrand.boidart (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

130 ghits does not establish notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but IEEE papers establish the notability... If you know what is it... Therefore KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.160.224.217 (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

IEEE... yea I know it and I disagree. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You should argue and be factual (as said in the wiki etiquette), because your response is not constructive. Emmanuel.marilly (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

keep - The project represents one of the new trends in Interactive TV, using the mobile phone for seamless authentication and personalisation of services. As such it extends the current developments of e.g. Full service broadband towards personalised service provisioning. I suggest that we take up the new trends in interactive and personalised TV and use WellCom as an example. Josef.Noll (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[34]] • contribs)

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ILLmacuLate

Fails WP:MUSIC, no evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh my oh my. The nominator deleted content from this article prior to making this nomination, content that helps to establish notability. I've restored it, and added a bunch of sources, enough to establish WP:GNG notability. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep - As far as I can tell he just meets one of the WP:MUSIC requirements for notability: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." I'm not sure if the Scribble Jam competition is truly "major", but I guess it'll do. (Changed from 'delete per nom') ~~SIS~~ 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that he meets WP:MUSIC criterion #1, which is WP:GNG. There's a rather detailed article about him in The Portland Mercury, and non-trivial mentions in several newspapers including the Chicago Tribune. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune ref appears to write about the entire festival, not so much about the rapper, but I have no way to check that. The Portland Mercury looked a bit too local and "bloggy" to me. While winning the 2004 competition was beyond any doubt. So I went for the one requirement I was sure of. ~~SIS~~ 22:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 23:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RockManQ ^(talk) 01:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete. I don't see how winning a minor award or being mentioned in a trivial contest quite qualifies. Still, it's marginal. Xihr 04:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, if it were an award that was never mentioned in any newspapers, I would agree. But his winning Scribble Jam got him a mention in The Register-Guard, the Columbus Dispatch, the Dayton Daily News, and the Chicago Tribune. His winning the World Rap Championships is mentioned in The Portland Mercury and The Register-Guard (separately from the previous mention). He is also mentioned in Vibe magazine. This is why I was arguing based solely on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Canadian debaters

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically, this should be deleted because it is not notable. I am sympathetic to debating articles, I've been a contributor to a number of them, but this is a blatant attempt to dodge the criteria for notability given on the list of debaters page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_debaters). There is nothing notable about being a "notable" Canadian debater, some of these IVs are small and insignificant, and this is basically a clear glory page that attempts to dodge the extensive discussion and rulings on debater notability. If you have won a world championship or something, fine, you are listed on the list of debaters page, but this is just vanity of no note. by all means, these IVs can have their own pages, that should mostly fit in notability. But to give a page to list all the previous finalists and top performers, for some very average IVs, is for mine a step way too far. To conclude; let the previous winners be noted as a subsection on the page of each IV (assuming the IV is notable), but all these lists of stuff covered elsewhere is just too much JJJ999 (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. A list of non-notable people who've won non-notable awards in different competitions. Hence entries are not even comparable. Pointless.Yobmod (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete HUGE list of non-notable people, nearly all of whom would be redlinks and (nearly?) none of whom would pass WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per Yobmod. Mvjs Talking 21:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

MiRoamer

Non-notable internet radio portal and the company that runs it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete both--just advertising. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Both as non-notable web content / company. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ariana Strozzi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nice resume, but no real evidence of notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

weak keep - mentioned in sources such as this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

keep for the same reason. At the pace you just nominated 2 dozen articles, did you even read through them all properly?JJJ999 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you say puff piece? -- Biruitorul ^Talk 03:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Notability easy to verify. Being poorly written or "puffy" is no reason for deletion... only for improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. What are clearly local interest pieces in a regional newspaper (even one that is a paper of record on certain issues) does not constitute "significant coverage" (IMO). Bongomatic (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep, it's a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. RockManQ ^(talk) 01:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Any reason this didn't go up for WP:PROD first? — X S G 02:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Despite all claims above, while searching the net for references I found nothing that could substantiate notability. Self-published books, people talking about a class she taught, but... nothing about the subject. — X S G 04:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Lot's of self-generated publicity on the web, which is the place for it--not wikipedia. One self-published book. That sfgate took the hook doesn't mean that we have to. DGG (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Rikitiki & Merendeque

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rikitiki & Merendeque

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC. I can't find any legitimate news sources that mentions this duo. The only hits I get via Google are for MySpace, YouTube, and other video sites. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. As I noted on the talk page, selling your music via Amazon does not equate to automatic notability. That said, not only are there notability concerns, but also verifiability. The article cites no non-blog sources. I would reconsider if independent reliable sources were found; however, in the current condition, the article fails both the notability and verifiability requirements. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Lack of reliable sources --Megaboz (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom & above. JBsupreme (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not even famous or popular on youtube. I clicked one of the linked videos at random at it had some 2000 or so views. In a community where a 10-second clip of a sleepy kitten might get 10 million views, 2000 views is absolutely nothing at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Chief Commissioners of Panth-Piploda

A list consisting of one entry is not a list at all. All the necessary information contained in this "list" are already in the main article. Hence, I nominate this for deletion. kur ykh 00:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, a one entry list...is not a list. A PROD could of/should of been used instead. RockManQ ^(talk) 01:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete senseless list at this point. JJL (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge information back to Panth-Piploda (a province of British India that later became part of the Ratlam District of Madhya Pradesh state. It seems that earlier today (October 9), one contributor added the sentence "There was only one chief commissioner, Sir Walter Fendall Campbell," while someone else (who wasn't logged in) took the sentence out with the comment "not true". Instead of creating a separate article, find a source for the information about Sir Walter. Until then, haggle it out on the "discussion" page for the article. Mandsford (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above; not useful for navigation. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Libre services

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:OR, WP:SYN. The term "libre services" is a neologism with no notable adoption; references to the term in the wild in English refer almost exclusively to the manifesto. The article pieces together various disparate references to things which might consistitute "libre services" in attempting to describe it. Insofar as the concept itself is notable, it is already dealt with in other articles within Wikipedia's coverage of free software. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability outside the single primary source (libreservices.org). VG ☎ 14:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

delete seems to be using a neo as a coatrack. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
delete per WP:Notability and OR. Plus I was reading the citations and this one will be helpful to other voters or the closer. Sentriclecub (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1.3 Our philosophy

We believe that the intellectual property ownership mechanisms of patents, copyright and trade secrecy, as they exist today, have virtually no legitimacy at all within the digital domain.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Betsy Fagin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated after ProD. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines at WP:CREATIVE. gnfnrf (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment There semes to be a bit on her that could improve the article and make it encyclopedic [35].
Delete Essentially no significant publications. I see nothing in the above G search that is usable as a RS. DGG (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Languages of Muslim countries

The article is well-intentioned, but it appears to be a randomly assembled hodgepodge list of blatantly obvious observations (they speak Turkish in Turkey, French in France, etc.) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it's a tough one for sure. I would say it could (with a chance) be salvageable, but unless no one wants to clean it up...Delete. RockManQ ^(talk) 01:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete it is well-intentioned but this could easily be Languages of countries because there appears to be no definition of what makes a Muslim country, etc. Also do, for example, no Muslim people in America speak Arabic? I don't think so. TravellingCari 02:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep I think that this could be improved with some census data, which would be a primary source for the information about languages. I agree that a lot of this is blantantly obvious, but this article is not beyond cleanup. Mandsford (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a plainly impossible-to-define topic: as Cari notes, how do we know what a Muslim country is? If this were specifically about countries where Muslims are the majority, or where Islam is the state religion, or with other similar criteria, but "Muslim" by itself is too broad. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep It is not beyond cleanup, not all of it is obvious.--Res 2216 firestar 21:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, unless wikipedia has an article Muslim countries a list of the sort x of Muslim countries should not be included in the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)
Delete--even if this is cleaned up, there's still no point to it. Right--what IS a Muslim country? Even with Nyttend's specifications this remains pointless: the languages spoken in a country are the languages that are spoken in that country, irregardless of anyone's religion. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep or merge into a Languages of Muslims article 70.51.10.188 (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Ummm. no. Languages in mulsim countries = languages. Farsi, arabic, french, english, turkish, Indonesian, Languages of China...the list goes on. Protonk (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Gustafson

Not sufficiently noteable. Geronimo20 (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards the D-word. The main question is (ignoring the cruft about teaching and children's books) whether the subject is a notable pike angler... but I'm not sure that the single decent source (the Telegraph article) holds enough weight on its own (and Googling doesn't yield much else). This article has tested my adherence to policy and certainly stretched the boundaries of AGF so I wouldn't be too sorry to see it go, but I'm staying neutral for the mo. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

- Neutral Living in the local area, I thought he was more notable for his books myself. I don't particularly care about the article but describing is writing as 'cruft' seems a bit POV. 137.205.17.89 (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: 137.205.17.89 (talk • contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of the creator of this article --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

Delete - Not notable enough to have his own page. He is probably only notable around Oxfordshire for his books and maybe angling but that's about it. I haven't heard anything about him for years. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete The books are almost unknown--and apparently self-published. DGG (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Eurocontinental champion

Just created, however, irrelevant creation. This title has never existed in WWE and is just a "term" to refer wrestlers who have won the WWE Intercontinental Championship and WWE European Championship (hence Euro-continental). Their is no such a thing as a "Eurocontinental Championship or Eurocontinental Champion" and is just a hypothetical term. No sense in merging as term is rarely ever used. S _R X 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator of deletion.--S _R X 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - not an actual championship. Perhaps put the content into the Intercontinental and European Championship articles. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete the user has only created this page after adding to the the wrestler's articles concerned. Unlike the TCC and GSC, which at least have a sliver of evidence for them, this has only really been used by Kurt Angle as a jokey attack on D'Lo Brown, and is not a real term. I agree that no merge is needed as well. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn based on input from Andrew Lenahan. I would also like to use this space to acknowledge that I seriously misinterpreted Andrew's comments and I would like to apologise directly to Andrew for my error. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

La Cala Resort

Welcome to the Wikipedia Holiday Travel Guide, where you can choose a fine resort...oh, wait, Wikipedia is not a holiday travel guide! This slice of tourist spam needs to be tossed out. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per WP:NOT.--S _R X 00:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete...Wikipedia is not a travel guide. RockManQ ^(talk) 01:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Article reads like an advertisement for a non-notable resort --Megaboz (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep probably more recognisable to golfers than resortgoers in general, but La Cala is certainly notable. It's by far the biggest in both Costa del Sol and Spain itself, and hosts a number of notable events. Try a Google News search for "La Cala" +golf, there's certainly no shortage of reliable sources, and that's without even resorting to any of the number of magazines that cover golf exclusively. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per what RockManQ said.--Res 2216 firestar 21:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Walt Disney World Resort, for example is purely a holiday destination and that is on here I can not see the need to pick on La Cala Resort, certainly the largest of it's kind in Spain. Ecoleetage can not have double standards. There are hotels, airports, Islands, Cruise Ships etc here that have not had a speedy delete tag placed on them, I can not see the need to single this article out. As for notability what are you judging this on. It is purely in the eye of the beholder.--Theoneintraining (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not recognised as a valid argument for keeping an article. And please focus on content and not contributors -- I don't possess "double standards" and I am not the subject of this discussion. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- In this case I really have to question whether you Googled the subject before listing. Even a cursory glance at the results shows notability well past the point of inclusion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith before openly questioning someone's research and editorial skills in front of the community. I never put articles up for deletion without first checking via Google. The search I did focused on the "La Cala Resort" name (I did not include "golf") and what came up was overwhelmingly either a bunch of press releases or coverage where the resort was mentioned only in passing. You can confirm this via [36] and [37]. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me get this straight... you listed a resort with three golf courses, mentions of golf tournaments in the article, and even a picture of a golf green(!) in the article, yet you didn't think to include "golf" in your search?!? Ooookay then. Since clearly your actions in this matter are impeccable and any attempt to question your Sherlockian methods would be an indefensable breach of AGF, I'll avoid stating the obvious here. However, I can't not state that even your own searcg linked in this very comment includes substantial claims of notability from reliable sources in the very first couple of results: specifically, articles from The Scotsman indicating the resort as host to LPGA tour events. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, if you cannot contribute to the conversation without being rude, please click that little red box in the upper right corner of your computer screen. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried following your technical support, but all it did was close my browser and I still don't understand why you're apparently ignoring the sources found in your own search. Ok, ok, all kidding aside, you can't behave so bizarrely and expect no-one to remark upon it. The world simply does not work that way. I still don't see why you've discounted the Scotsman articles as sources (again, they were right at the top... of your search, not mine). I'm also curious whether, after being told using "La Cala" +golf would bring far more sources--I get 300 or so--you apparently think all these should be discounted as well. The bottom line is neither notability nor verifiability are in question here, nor does the article have an advertising-like tone. What deletion rationale is left? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record There are two articles from the Scotsman, [38] and [39] -- neither focuses on the resort, and both only mention the location passing during the course of a single sentence. That doesn't pass the test, sorry. And neither article is about the LPGA. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

They do, however, verify that the resort is host to PGA events, which is one of the primary claims of notability in the article, the other two being the largest golf resort in Spain and also having a five-star hotel. Even if one attempts to claim that none of these are on its own notable enough for an article (with which I would disagree), it's still unfathomable how all three aren't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability isn't inherited and five-star hotels are not notable unto themselves. But let's get off the carousel with an easy solution. Andrew, if you are so eager to save the article, why don't you rewrite it with all of those goodies that you are citing (facts, references, etc.)? When it looks like a real encyclopedia article and not marketing collateral, I will withdraw the nomination. I think that is fair, yes? Ecoleetage (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If hosting top-level professional golf tournaments, being the largest in a major country (Spain), and having internationally-recognised facilities doesn't make a golf resort notable, then please tell me what, in your opinion, would make it notable? What possible standard of notability are you holding it to? (Oh, and for what it's worth I don't see any marketing material in the article. Specifics, please.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as lies. DS (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bolgarith

I can only find six Google hits for this word, and none of them gives me any strong feelings that this is a real word. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - found no hits in engine searches, also seems to me that it is not a real word.--S _R X 00:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. Sounds more like bulshith. Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - obviously not a real word. The article is probably a poke at someone named Bo Garith. ... discospinster _talk 00:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete...Wikipedia is not for useless stuff that is made up. RockManQ ^(talk) 01:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Gazi moff 08:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom Herrell (motivational speaker)

Non-notable, and lack of Google hits for this person. Possibly a joke page of some sort by a student. And what exactly does "The Bare Midriff Look" have to do with motivational speakers anyway?? Doesn't meet WP:BIO by an inch, but not speedy delete. Walmwutter (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Besides the apparent COI, I see no notability here. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Megaboz (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
speedy delete assuming this meets the random criteria of what's allowed to be deleted under A7. Doesn't assert the subject's notability, and can't because there is none. [40]. Sticky Parkin 16:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete please--poor advertising. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - according to this diff the only 3 to have edited (create, edit, afd) the Tom Herrell page are the same person. Occuli (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Holden Apollo. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Chevrolet Apollo

AfDs for this article:

Article appears to be a hoax, no Vauxhall Cavalier/Opel Vectra was ever badged as an Apollo as far as I know. Alkwingle (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep but remove unverifiable info. --Walmwutter (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Holden Apollo has its own page already. A Google search for "Chevrolet Apollo" turned up mostly derivative hits, plus one reference to an online parts dealer listing parts from mid-1970s Buick Apollos, some of which had Chevy engines. Rklear (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Holden Apollo. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Holden Apollo. swa q 18:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
-{{Infobox Book
+{| width = "100%"
-| name          = Revelation
+|-
-| title_orig    =
+! width="50%" align="left"  | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October  8|October 8]]
-| translator    =
+! width="50%" align="right" |  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October  10|October 10]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
-| image         = [[Image:Revelation_(Sansom).jpg]]
+|}
-| image_caption = First edition image
+</div>
-| author        = [[C. J. Sansom]]
+<div align = "center">'''[[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|Guide to deletion]]'''</div>
-| cover_artist  =
+{{Cent}}
-| country       = [[United Kingdom]]
+<small>{{purge|Purge server cache}}</small>
-| language      = [[English Language|English]]
+__TOC__
-| series        = Matthew Shardlake series
+<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
-| subject       = Crime
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team zEx (3rd nomination)}}
-| genre         = [[Crime fiction|Crime novel]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Sharpnel}}
-| publisher     = [[Macmillan Publishers|Macmillan]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn Newz}}
-| release_date  =  April 04 2008
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nursie}}
-| media_type    = Hardback
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DarkJester}}
-| pages         = 452
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinterion Wireless Modules}}
-| isbn          = 1-4050-9272-2
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry the Shlarp}}
-| preceded_by	= [[Sovereign (C. J. Sansom novel)|Sovereign]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nailin' Paylin}}
-| followed_by   = None
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristobal Dominguez}}
-}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cities in the developing world}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlie Wong}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael F. Rogers}}
-'''''Revelation''''' is a crime novel by British author [[C. J. Sansom]]. It is Sansom's fifth novel, and the fourth in the Matthew Shardlake series. Set in the 16th Century during the reign of [[Henry VIII of England|King Henry VIII]], it follows hunchbacked lawyer Shardlake and his assistant, Jack Barak as they hunt a serial killer and investigate the case of teenage boy, a religious maniac locked in the Bedlam ([[Bethlem Royal Hospital]]) hospital for the insane.
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zukhits}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of states that formally recognise the independent Republic of Slovenia}}
-{{CJ Sansom Novels}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharak}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karan S'jet}}
-[[Category:2008 novels]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurentian Wesleyan Church}}
-[[Category:British novels]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith Hall (Anderson Univ.)}}
-[[Category:Crime novels]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Ragsdale}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Piece of the Action (Robot Chicken episode)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Still Hungry - Enjoy Sessions}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gap Girls}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lane Maxwell}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Burns, Your Company's Computer Guy}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarzan, Tonto, and Frankenstein's Monster}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motivational poster}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stones (rapper)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protest Stripper}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berean Christian High School (Fairview Heights, Illinois)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endgame: Singularity}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations Music Appreciation Club}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boach}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of the undead}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian supercentenarians}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolrus (3rd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathosray}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Bless the American Plague}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American Plague}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybalism}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany rice}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational data industry model}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swara Sampada}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yii Framework}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carter's Foods}} -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The iProfile}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dahili Network}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cardboards (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCM - Time Critical Manufacturing}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ironbank Country Fire Service}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.O.P. (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almighty 12th street players}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumpawarrump}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital_Subscription_Fund}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contemporary_Verse_2}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future_Lovers_(Madonna_song)_(2nd_nomination)}} -->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impressive_Instant}} -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana_Van_Voorhis}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutran}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobody_Knows_Me}} -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional_Council_of_South_Ostrobothnia}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take_A_Worm_For_A_Walk_Week}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Smith (Lismore)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Waddington}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National skip share week}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sonic Edge}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballyhoo! (band)}} -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run (Rock band)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keep Going Back}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/...The Fame}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Rush (1985 album)}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The All-Girl Boys}} -->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desde Las Estrellas}} -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Murphy (1965 - )}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festive Land: Carnaval in Bahia}} -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beadling Soccer Club}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Kid:The Devon Eaddy Story}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Pierse}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency (radio station)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta Omicron Iota}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldominion}} -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John J. McGraw}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supa Ugly}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Free}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Europe Today Project}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USAG compulsory routines}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insense}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meidan-i-Noor}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Warhead"}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing (Film)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federico Vellani}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of image analysis software}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Malaysian coats of arms}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgiana Bruce Kirby Preparatory School}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studio job}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Nadolski}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chemical Feast}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revenge (Madonna song)}} -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital property framework}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draíocht Children's Arts Festival}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last student standing}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eureka ITEA2 WellCom Project}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ILLmacuLate}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian debaters}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MiRoamer}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariana Strozzi}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikitiki & Merendeque}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chief Commissioners of Panth-Piploda}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libre services}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betsy Fagin}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burns, White & Hickton}} -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Languages of Muslim countries}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lahing Kayumanggi Dance Company}} -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gustafson}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Vie Theatre}} -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurocontinental champion}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Cala Resort}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolgarith}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Herrell (motivational speaker)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chevrolet Apollo (2nd nomination)}}