User talk:Chavorz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 13: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:32, 13 October 2008

< October 12	October 14 >

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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seed Herbarium Image Project

PROD removed by anonymous user (see article talkpage). Original PROD rationale was "wikipedia is not a webhost, gallery, or similar. Press releases and self-published sources are not reliable 3rd party sources". I've found nothing since to support notability nor verfiability so have to add those to my original reasoning. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Arnold Arboretum. It is one of their projects. Merge should trim the material appropriately, especially the image gallery aspect. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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} 21:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a major project of international significance. The illustrations are representative only--the purpose is not to show the gallery, but to appropriately indicate the information available at the resources. appropriate description. DGG (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether I want to simply keep it or merge it. at any rate, deletion should not happen. The images all appear copyvios according to the commons and so they will be deleted, removing the gallery aspect of the entry. Since the Arboretum is notable, covering this project in its article would not require a separate proof of notability for the project or an independant one at that. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo pillow

Veiled spam for a non-notable product. At best redirect to a general article about putting photos on to non-paper surfaces. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most objects can be treated this way, I have a friend who puts photos on all sorts of objects. This is just one example, and a non-notable one. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure how this in itself is notable. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These days you can put a photo on darn near anything if you really want to, from a bathroom tile to a cookie. This isn't notable, and I expect the true purpose of the article is a place to park a commercial external link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see any notability in this. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Qassam rocket attacks, 2006

Wikipedia is not news, nor is it an archive for news items. Although, I have no doubt that some of the events may in fact be notable this article claims to be about all of them but, only serves to regurgitate items of news without any apparent attempt to be encylopedic on the subject. PROD tag removed by author without any attempt at explaination. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

And if I'm gonna nominate these two than in the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and lord know what else I need to nominate the following for the same reasons as well:

Additionally, although Qassam rockets and such may be notable enough the base article List of Qassam rocket attacks need to be reviewed. It should either be a list of notable events or an article about Qassam rocket attacks and at the moment it appears stuck half way in between to me. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Jasynnash2 said most of what I was going to say. RockManQ ^(talk) 15:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Eatabullet (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a single list. If all the information is already there, delete. I do not think the entries too detailed, and a list of them is appropriate content, more than just temporary interest. DGG (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a merge occurs than List of Qassam rocket attacks is probably the best place (but, as I pointed out that article is stuck somewhere between being a list and being an article).Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of named Solar System objects

I can't see the point of this article. There are only two reasons for someone to look up the name of a Solar System body: either one knows the name but doesn't know the object, or knows the object but not the name. If one knows the name, one can type it into the search engine and find the object in the disambig. If one knows the object, one can search for Moons of Jupiter, list of planets or whatever category one wishes, and find the name that way. This article is no help whatsoever. Serendi ^pod ous 12:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm assuming the information is accurate. The list is somewhat interesting and does no harm. (A lot of work went into it too but I know that's not a reason to keep.) Northwestgnome (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because an article is used primarily to find objects is not a valid argument against its notability. As such, I would ask that additional reasons be brought forth as to clarify why it should be deleted. Thank you. Zidel333 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that it is used to find objects. The point is that it is absolutely useless at finding objects. There is no reason for anyone to use this page, other than curiosity value. No one who knew the name of the object would bother looking for it here when they could more easily find it on a disambig page. And if one were looking for an object, like a moon of Jupiter or an asteroid, but didn't know its name, this page is no help, because it's arranged by name, not by category. If you want additional reasons, fine. It's coverage is patchy; it seems to basically include everything that isn't an asteroid, but excludes comets. Serendi ^pod ous 15:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't brought up good reasons as to why it should be deleted; where and why the article needs work, but not for deletion. Sorry, if you can't come up with anything better, I'm going to vote for keep. Zidel333 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has too many lists of Solar System objects. I'm trying to consolidate the lists into useful, sortable featured lists for the Solar System FT. I can't see this list ever reaching FT, and there are already plenty of other lists giving the same information, so I'd prefer it if it went. Serendi ^pod ous 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "I can't see the point of this article" isn't a valid reason for deletion. Anyway, here's one use for such a list - suppose you want to know how many non-asteroid bodies in the Solar System have names that begin with the letter Z ? There's only one (I didn't know that before I browsed the list). Very hard to find that information through categories or other resources. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my and Gandalf61's comments as well the lack of compelling evidence for deleting the article at this time. Zidel333 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of cleaning up the Solar System lists into something worthy of an encyclopedia. This isn't really a list of named SS bodies, but an arbitrary partial list of SS bodies that one source thought were of interest. I mean, why should Ganymed be included, but not Hektor, which is far more notable? It's completely redundant with several other lists, and deleting it would not remove any information from Wikipedia. kwami (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a list of named asteroids, but other than this no direct list of solar system objects by name. If the information can be preserved in another article, fine, but I don't see how that can be done other than be reproducing the list. The other objections are weak; the proper response to "wtf is the asteroid Ganymed doing on this list" should be to delete Ganymed, not to delete the list. Comets don't appear because they don't have proper names, but rather designations consisting of a number, a letter, and the name of the discoverer. I approve in a general way of consolidating information, but it seems to me that deleting this article is not consolidation but subtraction -- removing a helpful index of planetary and lunar names. RandomCritic (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with the list: it fulfills list guidelines quite well (its criteria are obvious, not POV, etc.), and as noted by Gandalf, it fills in a spot that no other article or category does. Yes, it's redundent to some other lists, but not to any other single article: to get this kind of information elsewhere, you'd have to compare multiple other lists to get the information visible all together at this list. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep and work on to coordinate with other lists. Merge can be done later. The key reason for lists--besides locating information imperfectly known--is browsing. Browsing is perhaps the main reason for collecting articles into an encyclopedia in the first place. DGG (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 3 and 7. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without wishing to be overly pedantic, I would note that WP:LC is only an essay, so I don't think its (rather idiosyncratic) list of criteria can carry much weight in an AfD discussion. Basing arguments on policies or guidelines would be better. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It isn't indiscriminate. I do see the redundancy of which others have spoken, but the best way to handle that is to engage in merge discussions. This seems to fall within the scope of WP Space, I'll tag the page so they can coordinate things. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I just don't see how this list can ever have a decent inclusion criterion. Do you include the named asteroids or not? If so, the list will be tens of thousands of entries long. If not the list would exclude interesting and important bodies like Ceres and Chiron. Do we include only bodies bigger than a certain size? No, because then we'd just have a duplication of this list with a different ordering. This list just isn't going to work. Reyk _YO! 07:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MvjsTalking 09:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IHP National Airpistol

No text whatsoever - enough to delete under db-a3. The only info in the article is an infobox. No references/inline cites/inbound links either Flewis^(talk) 12:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Enough text has been added since nomination to address the A3 issue, and one reference has been inserted, though it is not a third-party reference. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Blanchardb. May need to be relisted however due to questions of notability. --Millbrooky (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection (Gary Numan album)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article should be re-created once concrete info (together with verifiable external sources) on the album emerge. Flewis^(talk) 12:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Not enough verifiable information to stand on its own as an article. Fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. --JD554 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; looks like this is already covered at Gary Numan#New albums, though it's unsourced. Until we get a release date and track list, that's where info on this album belongs. Cliff smith ^talk 17:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NALBUMS -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion about merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SM Lifestyle Center

Non notable mall. No inline citations or external links. No inbound links either. Flewis^(talk) 12:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Taking this to AfD just 13 minutes after it was created and without any of the strongly recommended prior steps like tagging appears over the top. - Dravecky (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was tagged for Afd rather than being tagged for CSD in order to establish a thorough consensus. Also, the sole contributor to the article has chosen not to edit or improve the article further [1]. The article would've probably remained in its current state for a long time, without being noticed or edited had it not been tagged. At least now it will be brought to the attention of the community, who will have the chance to improve it, so that it meets wiki standards - in the case of a 'keep' --Flewis^(talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(read square meters as square feet)Its gross leasable area would make it almost 3 times the minimum for a "Super regional mall" and these have generally been kept in previous AFDs,[2], serving as the "dominant shopping venue for the region in which it is located" per Shopping mall. Delete Rather small mall, far less than "regional" in its leasable area. Malls of this size have often been deleted in past AFDs since they are very common. Perhaps mention it in an article about its city. Edison (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SM Prime Holdings & Henry Sy. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the figure for retail space is correct, it's almost as big as the Mall of America (216000 vs 230000 m²), and would be the seventh biggest mall in the US. Edison, are you confusing square metres and square feet? A mall that big is notable, if we can source the figure. The SM website lists it as still under construction, BTW. Matt's talk 10:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the catch of sq meters rather than sq feet. BTW, "SM Lifestyle Center" sounds like whips and chains and is a pretty odd name for a shopping mall. Edison (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by default. Although a Google search on "SM Lifestyle Center" returns next to nothing, the few hits link to sites about "SM中国". A search on that returns a lot of hits, nearly all of them in Chinese. Only someone who speaks any Chinese may conclude that none of those references can establish the mall's notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Zibo. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Zichuan District I had a longer look at the official SM China website, and the "construction area" of the Zibo shopping centre is listed as 66,000.17 square metres (it's the same in Mandarin). I also googled/baidu'd Zibo and SM Mall (淄博 SM城市广场; SM中国), and couldn't find any RSs, just a Zichuan District propaganda article. Most of the leading articles on Baidu are about some sort of talent show SM was running. Matt's talk 14:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because otherwise it'll set a record for the most relists. No, seriously, keep because there do seem to be sources, they're probably just in Chinese. The largest mall by a notable management firm is probably notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a major retail facility, and citable sources clearly exist. AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requisition

Contested prod for two-year old dictionary definition that shows no potential for growth beyond its current state. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Allen3 ^talk 12:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — dictionary definition. MuZemike (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this article consists only of a dictionary definition and has a page on Wiktionary, which is where it belongs. Cliff smith [[User talk:Cliff smith|^talk</ 17:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The historical context that Daniel (talk · contribs) is talking about (You all looked at the article's history, right?) is probably World Wars I and II. They involved Germany's egregious flouting of the Hague Regulations, in particular Articles 46 and 52, governing requisition by an occupying army — the standard method of supporting such an army through the 19th century. There's plenty of source material on this, including discussion in books on international law, and analyses of the various military manuals of the world that shows how they now codify practices on requisition. We don't delete stubs with potential for expansion. And this article is exactly that. We might need an article on spoilation (the jus in bello concept), too. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that in your eagerness to disparage the nomination with comments about not checking the history that you also noticed that Daniel (talk · contribs) has twice undeleted this article without having once expanded it beyond the dicdef stage or producing one of the many sources you claim exist. If these sources actually exist, and there is an encyclopedic subject related to this article's title, then please WP:PROVEIT because the appropriateness of this article has been repeatedly challenged. --Allen3 ^talk 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote nothing disparaging about the nomination. Indeed, I wrote nothing about the nomination at all. But I did try to make sure that you were all on the same page and knew what I was talking about when I suddenly brought Daniel into the discussion. I have already told you, in detail, what the encyclopaedic subject by this title is. AFD is not a means for imposing deadlines by which articles must be expanded beyond stub status. Nor is a mechanism for bullying either Daniel or anyone else into doing such expansion. There is no deadline, perfection ab initio is not required, and we are all unpaid volunteers. If you want this article expanded beyond stub status, be bold and expand it. You should have a clear idea, now that I've explained what Daniel was getting at, what the subject is. Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is lots of potential for this stub as there are two separate topics here - the military context of compulsory demands for goods and services; the administrative start point for purchasing. The article needs to focus upon one of these topics and so what's needed is another article, not the deletion of this one. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator (myself) due to subsequent improvements. The article now establishes notability, and is well written. (non-admin closure) Flewis^(talk) 04:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Clarke (educationalist)

Non notable character. No inline citations or external links for WP:V. No inbound article links either. The text within the article also lacks context. Flewis^(talk) 12:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A google search provided me with these to links: (both obituaries) [3] [4], however 2 external links alone do not assert notability. --Flewis^(talk) 12:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless the article is a hoax (and I don't think so) he is certainly notable enough. Sources could probably be found in a British library. The article could use a slightly more neutral view, but still is informative. Northwestgnome (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All above comments are now fixed. Bletchley (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Eatabullet (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate a little more, please. RockManQ ^(talk) 15:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The obits decisively establish notability.John Z (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I just don't like it when people arbitrarily determine an article to be simply "not-notable". Guess I'm being a little picky. While I'm here though Keep; the verifiable references establish the notability of the article. RockManQ ^(talk) 01:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the article looked like when I tagged it for afd. --Flewis^(talk) 04:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources establish notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Headmaster of Holland Park is notable, as for any other truly famous school. The founding headmaster is more than just notable, but a key figure in modern education. and obits in The Times remains accepted as sufficient by themselves for notability. At the time of nomination, that and other refs were not yet in the article, but nominating new articles for deletion only 5 minutes after their start without doing the most superficial check for notability is unconstructive. DGG (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Boyd

Procedural nomination, PROD removed with rationale "Plays in top tier of professional football in Northern Ireland". However, the Northern Irish league is not fully professional. Player record does not appear on Soccerbase, and he has yet to make an appearance for the first team.[5] Therefore, he fails WP:ATHLETE Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 12:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE - as far as I'm aware, there are no fully professional clubs in the Northern Irish league. I'd add Robbie White to the nomination too, as he is in the same situation (and was deprodded by the same editor for the same mistaken reason). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 12:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 12:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Giant Snowman 15:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the failure of WP:ATHLETE, the athlete is not professional and lacks non-trivial coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE said two-bob footballers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.184.130 (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Chaturvedi

Delete. Non-notable businessman, fails WP:BIO, references provide only passing reference to the subject. WWGB (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article should be restored if he wins a seat in the upcoming election. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that he help a significant political office, and he's managing a non-notable company. Being the brother of another politician does not make him notable either. VG ☎ 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As article says he is prospected candidate for forthcoming MP elecction. What is the loss if we wait till election which is 1 month later. Aminami (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because "being an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability". IF he is elected then it will not be difficult to re-create such a short article. He is not notable now, so does not warrant an article now. WWGB (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highly non-notable. If he wins in the election and becomes and MP, then he becomes notable, not until then. --GDibyendu (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 00:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medical statistics

Poorly focused article, with no real content —G716 <^T·_C> 11:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article could become useful. Note that it is already linked from several other articles, meaning that the editors there suggested creating this article. Don't think the arguments for deletion are the right ones; this topic has verifiable, reputable sources. It doesn't look like OR either. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a list of about two dozen concepts that should be presented here. It clearly needs work, but there's plenty of scope here for a Feature-length article, and there is no shortage of potential sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
obvious keep notable, encyclopedic subject. Sticky Parkin 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely is notable and important. Sentriclecub (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unverifiable. Editors have been unable to find any sources at all. As a last-ditch check, I tried to find some sources myself, and couldn't find a thing. The explicit statement by the article's creator, 888vbox888 (talk · contribs), that there are no sources is the final nail in the coffin. This is not what Wikipedia is for, 888vbox888. As it said next to the edit box when you created the article, encyclopaedia content must be verifiable. If you want to document a chess variant that you or your friends made up in University, get it documented through the proper channels, outside of Wikipedia, first. Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen's Chess

A chess variant. Somewhat more serious than the average NFT article but the lack of references and Google hits suggest that it is not notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -Delete - I am suggesting keep on the assumption this chess variant is legitimate and can be sourced. The article is by a new editor and this is their first and only article edited just ten days ago. The variant is listed and linked in the Chess variants. Talk:Gentlemen's Chess kinda shoots my logical down. I tagged the article for sourcing.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)--Mike Cline (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Afraid this wreaks of WP:MADEUP. "Gentlemen's Chess" returns a whopping 82 ghits. Sounds like a lovely game that is not yet ready for Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I managed to knock it down to 0 Google Hits. -Verdatum (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting idea, but Wikipedia isn't a place for unsourced things made up in university one day. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the plea at Talk:Gentlemen's Chess says it all! Fails WP:V. After the inevitable deletion it should also be removed from Chess variant. Smile a While (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to chess variant if can be verified as not made up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parramore Sports

Club fails to meet the generally accepted notability criteria for English football clubs, i.e. having played at Step 6 or above, or in the FA Cup or FA Vase. This has been established in numerous (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16) past AfDs. Was prodded, but removed by anonymous editor without explanation. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The highest level this club has played at is Level 12/Step 8, two divisions below the normally-accepted cut-off point for English clubs. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 15:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Angelo (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality (Rihanna song)

Upcoming Rihanna song. Second sentence starts with "It may be the lead single ...". Third and last sentence ends with "... leaked onto the internet".
Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTE, WP:V. PROD declined. Amalthea^Talk 10:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, especially when another song off her current album is being promoted as her single right now. I have added Rihanna's Fourth Studio Album to this AfD as lacking any sources and meeting WP:HAMMER for a vague album title. Nate • (chatter) 11:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see Rihanna's upcoming forth studio album (no kidding).
  There was a previous AfD for the album at WP:Articles for deletion/Fourth Album (Rihanna album), but I don't think it's substantially identical which is why I prodded it. --Amalthea^Talk 11:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You can just add it in on the Rihanna wiki page, under a topic called future projects. And just state that she recording a new album and this song. Make a wiki page when it gets closer to the release dates. --BatterWow (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a leaked clip is really a good excuse to create an article. Sometimes i wish wikipedia would block people who make pages like this. Ogioh (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook example of WP:NOT#Crystal. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 16:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculative single from an as-of-yet-unconfirmed album, sourced to an unreliable website (a fan blog). Hammer this thing! --Winger84 (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing is certain at this point. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One thing is certain. This article gots ta go! JBsupreme (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: PROD of Rihanna's upcoming forth studio album was declined and the article was brought seperately to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihanna's upcoming forth studio album. I suggest that the closing admin takes care of both these articles, since it's substantially identical to Rihanna's Fourth Studio Album and all arguments made here apply there too. --Amalthea^Talk 12:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:SNOW and under CSD G10. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Wilson

Unreferenced, no sources found via Google or Google News. WP:BLP issues, borderline attack page. Huon (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Firewall (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as admin who declined speedy. There is this Daily mail article but that is just WP:ONEEVENT. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 10:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:G10 — negative unsourced BLP. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per User:Ameliorate!'s reasoning, --Badgernet ^Talk 14:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 00:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Extinction Awareness System

Apparently this is a computer game, albeit with a serious purpose. Article is short on refs. Is it notable? Sgroupace (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, according to the article, its predecessor was "was developed in 2010", and this system was "developed in 2014". Something doesn't add up here. Was not able to find anything to indicate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete seems to be a hoax, although with a serious purpose. Too bad there is not a Wikiprediction. Redddogg (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt seem to be notable. Eatabullet (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either a hoax or authored by a time traveller from the future. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luciana Misi

Previously deleted as an expired PROD and recreated by the same author. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Article does not reference any reliable third party sources which feature her, and I was unable to find any --Megaboz (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Megaboz, fails WP:BIO due to lack of sources. JBsupreme (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to support notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Drew

not notable; suspected COI; reads mostly like an advertisement -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There do not seem to be any reliable sources which establish his notability --Megaboz (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. JBsupreme (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everything else mentioned above. - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the criticism for this DJ when for example, David Rockwell, has less notoriety and no problems with a creation of his page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afranklin2 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps because many (including myself) weren't aware the article existed? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Hot 100 50th Anniversary

I'm not sure how this is really encyclopedic information. It doesn't really tell the reader anything and what is here is basically plagiarized from Billboard. Wolfer68 (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Billboard Hot 100, although it's a pretty unlikely search term. There was no event for the 50th anniversary of the chart of encyclopedic notability. Darkspots (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional in nature (and in style). I would not recommend redirecting as "Hot 100" would be the most likely search term... and has an article that would be the target of such a redirect anyway. B.Wind (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Just in time for Halloween. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Quick and the Undead

Zombie movie. Inclusion in IMDb shows that it probably exists but it is no evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:FILM . - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being poorly written and unsourced is not a reason for deletion. I advise keep and tag for improvement. The film is out there, it is getting some lengthy and in-depth reviews from reliable sources expert to make such reviews, and an encyclopdic article can result per [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], etc. With respects... the nom may not have looked. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Along with the numerous blogs you listed, I see three other sources. AMG info copied on New York Times online, showing yes, it exists: no review, no notability. amazon.com showing that yes, it exists: no evidence of notability. Rottentomatoes showing yes, it exists: no reviews, no notability. Nothing here indicates even approaching notability guidelines at WP:MOVIE. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rebuttal: With respects, the reviews at horror-movies, digital-retribution, cinefantastique, evildread, mutantreviewers, severedhorror, et al are reviews from persons expert in the genre whose opinions for that genre are respected. I would not expect The Washington Post to have an article or review of a horror film, just as I would not expect EvilDread to write an article on Sarah Palin. As a current example, see such refs used at Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives accepted as WP:RS in the context for which they are offered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sourcing mentioned above is barely passable... but there's enough of it that this just barely clears the bar in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have just wikified, and added the sources and reviews. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the Name Change (2005).

Almost nonsense. Unreferenced (no citations); virtually all POV and not notable -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The issue could be mentioned in the team's article. Redddogg (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hardnfast (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Black ngold29 21:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what's possible into Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. I don't really see any material about a "curse" related to the name change. --Pixelface (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse stereotypes

Although there is a reference provided, this article does not assert the importance or significance of the topic as to be included in an encyclopædia article.EuroSong ^talk 09:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is this not a notable topic? The article does suffer from being written from only one point of view however. (It seems to be written with an agenda -- as is the source I'm guessing -- to promote the "correct" view of nurses vs. all these "stereotypes.")Redddogg (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article promotes career prejudice and is also sexism in disguise. The article could be renamed Female stereotype and most of the article would still be true. Instead of talk about nurses in a cultural/historical context, it just lists and categorizes about various European/American stereotypes of this profession. BTW, nurse is a respected profession many other parts of the world. --Voidvector (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting we Censor WP for this kind of information? This Article deals only with the Nurse imagery, are you saying that as a Female stereotype we should expand it(?) while as a Nurse stereotype it should be deleted? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Someone apparently thought it important enough to create a French-language version. -Drawn Some (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh those French! :-) Redddogg (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 09:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or merge to Nurses. There are numerous comedy shows in which nurses are stereotyped; in the subject of stereotypes, nurses are a notable profession, I think. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Nurses in Popular Culture RogueNinja_talk 13:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge only salvageable content into nursing. The current article is a POV screed. The alphabetic "classification" of major stereotypes is either invented or was introduced by the only source (which is not credited) and therefore not notable as such. JFW | T@lk 20:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it must be a notable topic if all these books talk about it. Just because they are not mentioned in the Article is only an edit issue, the rest could be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue, as this admittedly is an issue that a entire industry sector dislikes. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough and sufficiently sourced for a separate article. Merging to nurse would create WP:UNDUE problems because this text is fairly long. VG ☎ 07:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citi Badminton Team

Non notable, non sourced, content not suitable for an encyclopedia Eatabullet (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pls retain this article as the Citi Badminton Team is one of the pilars in Corporate Badminton Tournament Circuit in the Philippines. Citi Badminton team is the one of the oldest Corporate badminton teams in the phils and its history need to be archived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darupinta07 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you pls provide me with guidance and/or tips to improve the contribution in order for this to be compliant to the minimum standards for wikipedia retention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darupinta07 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read all of these:Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Notability User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and unverified WP:OR. There probably is a need for an article on this subject but this article, in its present form, isn't it. Eddie.willers (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The info provided was based on the data gathered from our organization's historian. There are several articles written in major dailies in the Philippines about Citi Badminton team. In due time, they will included and cited in here... particularly, after the resolution on whether this topic merits its inclusion in Wikipedia.

Care to sign your messages with the four tildes? Starczamora (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, WP:N, WP:V. Company sports teams are fun and good for morale, but not something an encyclopedia can reasonably cover. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not only about a company sports team. Citi Badminton team has already made its mark in Philippines' employment by providing opportunities for collegiate athletes. In a country, where there's no real incentive system (e.g. monetary) for athletes to continue their sporting career after the university, Citi Badminton has bridged this gap. This is just an example of its impact and value as a human interest ... ergo an encycopedia can cover.
  - Okay, now this is just getting silly. Unless the "Citi Badminton Team" consists of millions of people, I strongly doubt it's had any impact on the Phillipines employment whatsoever... the Phillipines is a country of nearly 100 million people! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable, and what's with including press write-ups and e-mails on the main article? Starczamora (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, company-based sports teams are by themselves not notable...unless, say, the said team made it in the finals of some international competition sponsored by the international regulatory body for badminton. I don't care if, as alleged, it does provide employment opportunities for some persons--for all I care, there may be other companies or company sports teams that do the same---it's just that it simply does not meet Wikipedia's notability policies, and it simply has to go. There are also conflict of interest issues given that, per the anonymous/unsigned user comments, the article was written by a company historian. --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to page author, kindly do not blank the content until the discussion is closed. Thank you! Eatabullet (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being a non-notable company team. Although if I may add some teams are highly notable. –Howard the Duck 03:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-OCVM

Article is extremely confusing, issues haven't been addressed in a year, only two incoming links, zero references. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 08:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I am concerned, prose like this is patent nonsense: no reasonable person could be expected to make any sense of it. And while the article seems to be about air traffic control in Europe, it's actually — common approach to be applied by Research and Development organisations in support of the development and validation of operational Air Traffic Management (ATM) applications — about some kind of management theory for air traffic control.

The current title is a non-notable neologism as well; it should move to the expanded acronym, European Operational Concept Validation Methodology, if kept. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the content seems credible, but it needs a lot of work to get it properly referenced. Support rename to European Operational Concept Validation Methodology (retaining present name as a redirect). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable; furthermore, I can't imagine why we would have an article written like this, unless it were a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an essay, possible copyvio. VG ☎ 22:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's not a COPYVIO then the author should apply for a job in the EU or some similar bureaucracy, because they are obviously a natural. I work in the aircraft industry, and I'm overwhelmed by the ratio of acronyms to plain text. To specifically justify the delete !vote, it's basically advertising for a EUROCONTROL project. MadScot (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An editor below had requested a link to the previous AfD(s), at least one is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1991–1992 United States network television schedule (late night)

Articles are unsourced and do not assert their own importance. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following (if they still exist anqualify):

— Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is ill-formed by not noting previous AFDs such as [18]. Would the nominator or someone else please link to all previous AFDs for all these articles? That might head off WP:DRV. I will assume good faith from Jeff G., that he simply did not know that these articles had been through AFD before, nominated by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Edison (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and certainly is not a TV guide from the mid-20th century. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to add to the nomination United States network television schedules (late night), which will be only redlinks if this discussion results in a delete decision. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some discussion on what programs the major channels have historically sent may be covered in the articles on the channel. However, this raw timetable data is source material, not encyclopedia material. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure listcruft, even if moderately interesting. Eddie.willers (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is primary material, not encyclopedia articles. Put it someplace else on the Internet. Redddogg (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not encyclopedic to say the least. Eatabullet (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Dl2000 (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All including United States network television schedules (late night). Wikipedia is not a TV guide and I would also argue that it is these lists fall under WP:NOTREPOSITORY in that it is not a "Mere collection of public domain or other source material." Television schedules are source material, public domain, and widely available. We also are not a mirror of TV.com and the like. This and other such lists are not encyclopedic and do not add to the body of knowledge here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy them all! — Wikipedia is not a directory for these sort of things. MuZemike (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not seeing a particularly strong reason to delete these (assuming they can be sourced, that is). Someone doing research into TV programs would certainly find these useful. It's good to know which programs were competing with each other at a given time. And in case people weren't aware, many similar articles have survived AFD in the past. Zagalejo^^^ 18:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Each year's network TV schedule is discussed substantially in reviews in national media, as are all the programs, so they can be sourced. For 1991 and 1992 late night programming, the year selected for the main AFD entry, see Google News archive [19]. Each programming slot gets discussed in relation to its competition, who was the host before, and who might follow as host. See [20] which notes the late night competition between Arsenio Hall and Johnny Carson's designated successor, Jay Leno. Many of the article are unfortunately behind paywall. Dennis Miller versus Arsenio Hall versus Johhny Carson is discussed at [21]. The 1992 late night schedule is reviewd at [22]. The prime time schedules also have received substantial discussion in reliable sources every year there has been television broadcasting. Books have been written about TV schedules and programs for many of these years. The nomination is illformed and one big "IDONTLIKEIT." Edison (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, Keep 1967–1968 United States network television schedule and its redirect 1967–68 United States network television schedule. Why was this year singled out over other schedule years? Furthermore, the 1967-68 article was sourced in a References section, contrary to this AfD's claim.

Secondly, there's nothing new presented in the AfD that hasn't already played out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles, etc., other than that most articles in this case are the less-prominent late night schedules. There are also plenty of non-arguments here such as WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:ITSCRUFT. As for WP:NOT#DIR, see its point 3 which tolerates historic lists such as United States network television schedules - NOT#DIR is not a sufficient ground for deletion in this case.

Thirdly, specifically for 1990s CTV prime time schedules, like the 1967-68 article this is one of those things that are not like the others. Dragging the 1990s CTV into this mass-nomination is hardly good practice. A mass AfD should stick with the common theme, in this case limiting to U.S. late night schedules. That said, the 1990s CTV list is not substantive, and should Merge to the relevant Canada-wide schedule articles such as 1998–1999 Canadian network television schedule. However, much work remains to do on Canadian television information - let's not WP:DEMOLISH that house.

Fourthly, the "Any other bluelinks on United States network television schedules (late night) that qualify" is too vague to be acted upon for AfD purposes. Articles need to be individually identified for AfD. And just what is supposed to be meant by "qualify" here?

Finally, for the late night lists, historical schedules are valid lists which provide context of television history, how programs of each network have competed according to timeslot. However, some of these are not substantive and could merge to the main schedule article. For example, 1954-1955 United States network television schedule (late night) only indicates The Steve Allen Show, therefore it seems better to merge that info to 1954–1955 United States network television schedule. But the extent to which merging should be done (all year? some? none?) is best done as a project discussion outside an AfD e.g. at WT:TV before proceeding further. Therefore, No Action (Deletion or Merge) of late night schedules until this aspect is brought to a consensus. Dl2000 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Per Edison, Zagalejo, Dl2000 and the previous AfDs. No real sourcing problem of course; the articles could be expanded to discuss changes and reasons for changes.John Z (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not a directory and this does nothing for the the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. Tavix (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all this is an encyclopedia, not the TV Guide archives. I can't believe we're even having this discussion, people really will post anything to Wikipedia these days. JBsupreme (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why isn't this encyclopedic? There are real world reference books that contain annual network TV schedules. The people voting to delete need more substantial arguments. Zagalejo^^^ 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. An encyclopedia is supposed to consist of articles for people to read. A database of raw information should be maintained elsewhere on the Internet. There is no danger that something bad will happen and information not stored on Wikipedia will be lost. Nor does this information somehow gain higher status by being on Wikipedia. Redddogg (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are we going to delete all lists and tables? What makes a network TV schedule worse than the articles at Category:Meteorology timelines, or the extended periodic table? I agree that this information could be stored somewhere else, but can't that argument be extended to every article here? (By the way, three of those links lead to dab pages.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I got a little carried away with the wikilinking. :-) Since you asked, yes I think lists and tables should be removed unless they do something useful in the context of an encyclopedia -- like help someone find the right article, or they have some extraordinary importance -- like the Periodic Table. Redddogg (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That real-world reference books contain this material doesn't mean that encyclopedias contain this material. This argument is simply a non sequitur. Xihr 09:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FIVE says that Wikipedia incorporates elements of both general encylopedias and specialized encyclopedias. Surely Total Television counts as a specialized encyclopedia. Zagalejo^^^ 17:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of these and everything else in Category:Television schedules, per Edison and the fact that Wikipedia is not paper. This information is vital when dealing with the history of television, along with the articles in Category:Years in television. This material would be in a television encyclopedia so it's absolutely appropriate for Wikipedia. People are right, Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. But these lists are not issues of TV Guide. I don't see how these could violate WP:NOTDIR since that says "although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." All of these lists have great historical significance. If people want the lists to have more sources, they should look for them. For example, 2008–2009 United States network television schedule has 33 refs. So I don't see how deletion is the answer. A decision to merge the late night schedules into the main list articles is another topic altogether. And speaking of precedent, there was no consensus to delete in any of these related AFDs [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] --Pixelface (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all obviously, and now even WP:SNOW delete all, per all the arguments. This is simply not encyclopedic. Xihr 09:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read WP:SNOW before trying to apply it where it is inapplicable. Several editors have presented good-faith arguments that substantial coverage in numerous sources suport notability, and that the articles comply with all Wikipedia guidelines. Also as noted above the AFD is ill-formed and out of process and should be closed, since a mass of unlike articles are nominated, without noting previous AFDs which have resulted in articles being kept, and without clearly identifying the articles presented for deletion, due to the vague "Any other bluelinks on United States network television schedules (late night) that qualify" in the nomination. Edison (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Sjakkalle. Raw timetable data such as this is source material, not encyclopedia material. Perhaps Wikisource would make a good home? RFerreira (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Edison, others. Edward321 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all major network shows will have Wikipedia articles, these lists serve usefully to organize the material. the shows produced by each network are notable, and the content is simply from the specific Wikipedia articles, which are invariably well referenced at least in this regard. If the topics are notable, a list of them in any suitable and reasonable arrangement is a valid article. The earlier deleted articles should be reconstructed. DGG (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To the other delete arguments let me add this: The article is perfect and complete as it is. All possible information is given, So then the wiki aspect of wikipedia is not needed. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, this is among the silliest arguments to delete I have ever heard! Assuming it is even true that all of these articles are perfect and complete—you are arguing that if we manage to get an article to a state of perfection and completeness, we should then delete it? Shall we also delete List of leaders of the Soviet Union? Since the country no longer exists, I'm pretty sure that list is also perfect and complete. DHowell (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is material one might expect to find in a television encyclopedia, and per the first pillar we incoporate elements of specialized encyclopedias (as well as almanacs, where you would expect to find timetables). Also, WP:NOT#TVGUIDE specifically allows for "historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules)." DHowell (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's useful. As per Edison, others, strongly agree with DGG.--Julián Ortega - drop me a message 18:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This is very trivial information, and Wikipedia is not a TV guide archive. Else why stop at TV schedules, how about one article per city and year listing the bus schedules of the time? --Amalthea^Talk 01:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yearly national network TV schedules are covered in national magazines, newspapers, and specialized encyclopedias. Are you able to find anywhere near that amount of coverage for local bus schedules? DHowell (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Wiki is not paper. Deleting these does not help server space, the articles are potentially useful, and they don't harm anyone by existing. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per pixelface & DGG; seem like reasonably informative lists to me, epecially when taken together with the rest of category:television schedules. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 07:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:NOTDIR: "mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable"--emphasis on may be. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. — Scientizzle 00:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Stars of Wrestling

Non-notable wrestling company, has only existed for two months total and seemingly has only run a single event. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete all, no indication of notability, no independent sources. Huon (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable wrestling company with no sources, it's titles and 1 event are also NN. TJ Spyke 16:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I also suggest deleting Category:World Stars of Wrestling when the other pages are deleted. Darrenhusted (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronin Pictures

Seems to be a non-notable film production company. Only one film listed here. VG ☎ 05:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The company you linked to in your comment (Ronin Pictures Inc) is a US based company and not affiliated with Ronin Pictures Ltd (UK).

Ronin Pictures Ltd was founded earlier this year and is currently in pre-production with it's first feature film entitled Dementamania - Kit Ryan has been hired to direct. This makes Ronin Pictures a notable company. 12:39, 13 October 2008

Delete for abject failure to meet WP:CORP. Also, having a movie in pre-production could be construed as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, independent reliable sources make a company notable, not a product in pre-production. Huon (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability, no third party references. Bongomatic (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the unsourced single sentence and bring it back when there is notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Top Chef. MBisanz ^talk 08:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top Chef Junior

Having some doubts that this upcoming TV reality show is notable already. No third party sources are provided in the article. VG ☎ 05:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 05:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Top Chef, create heading about program 267 unique G-hits for "Top Chef Junior", including publicity releases from the network itself. It's a definite go, but for now a mention in the senior (no pun intended) article about the show is warranted. Nate • (chatter) 05:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Top Chef, split out later. Will undoubtedly be notable, but there isn't quite enough info just yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Top Chef per Starblind. Quid Pro Quo²³ 17:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now as above, split out if and when it's notable. SkierRMH (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully ask that another look be given to the article as it now exists. I'm a relative newbie, and I certainly appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of this article being debated! SupermanML (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All those references are newsflashes saying "this show will air soon" and giving info on criteria for applicants. WP:NOT#NEWS applies here. Also, there's nowhere near enough info in those refs for a separate article. VG ☎ 07:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NetCDF. The article and history merge is complete; I left the redirect in place. I did not want to attempt to trim the material, so it was merged in its entirety. Furthering editing of the article certainly is desireable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CF Metadata Conventions

This seems an overly technical description of some file format conventions. I doubt this info belong in Wikipedia at all, even in the parent article. VG ☎ 05:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 05:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to NetCDF - the metadata conventions apply only to NetCDF files, so could be moved to the article with a "conventions" header (there are several conventions). +mt 18:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While the CF conventions are currently netCDF-specific, there is already an effort underway to make them independent of the underlying format, so they can be applied to HDF5 data, for example. Mrskeptic (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The CF standard names, which are part of the CF metadata conventions, are already in use for other data formats. Mrskeptic (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This appears to be somewhat valid, according to this whitepaper on the topic. +mt 03:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The CF Conventions are widely used for climate model output and oceanography data, and because of this are being proposed as standards for the World Meteorological Organization, NASA's Earth Science Data Systems Working Group, and the Integrated Ocean Observing System. At a recent international meeting of the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portal (GO-ESSP) in Seattle, a day was devoted to discussion and presentations on the CF Conventions as one of the technical themes of the meeting, discussing ongoing projects to extend the CF conventions to better address satellite data, unstructured mesh data, and collections of observations. The CF Conventions have been selected for use in the upcoming Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 5 (CMIP5) multi-model runs, expected to provide input to the next assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Mrskeptic (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article will be useful, because new providers of geoscience data need a short, neutral encyclopedia article on the CF Conventions to put them in context, and to understand the background and history that led to their development.
- The development and evolution of the CF Conventions are important as an example of growth of bottom-up standards and governance from a widespread international community dealing with interoperability issues for important geoscience data.
- The article is still in the early stages of being built, and obviously needs more work. I intend to help with that as time permits over the next month. Mrskeptic (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The CF Conventions could be linked from NetCDF, but they should exist in their own right because they not only represent conventions for a file format, but a general data model for meteorological and oceanographic model output as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsignell (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to NetCDF. A web search reveals that few people care about this subject besides the ones developing it. The only other article to link to this is NetCDF. Wronkiew (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Lots of people care about CF, even if they don't know it, because without it their tools would not interpret data correctly. Evidence that CF is in wide use includes this list of projects and institutions adopting CF as a standard. Also a search for "climate and forecast conventions" yields hundreds of citations from many distinct institutions. Mrskeptic (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen plenty of folks (myself included) follow these metadata conventions that have no part in formulating them. +mt 03:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Being "technical" should be no bar for an entry in Wikipedia. Markb (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- VasileGaburici made a similar argument, that technical information is excluded from Wikipedia, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRK. I think that xe may have a misunderstanding of what that portion of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is addressing. It is not excluding detailed information on technical subjects. Wikipedia is both a specialized and a general-purpose encyclopaedia. It is excluding tutorials, walkthroughs, guides, and instructional materials.
  The proper question to be addressing here is whether there is documentation of these conventions by someone other than their original authors. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For a useful standard, it's better to have a single authoritative source than multiple authors documenting the standard independently. The conventions arise out of the consensus hammered out by a growing list of independent contributors working together to reach agreement. The process for adding to the conventions is open, and numerous participants have contributed to the evolving conventions.
    References to the CF conventions independent from the authors and contributors include a passage from "The Visualization Handbook", and descriptions in 5 other books found with a Google book search for "climate and forecast" conventions. Mrskeptic (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge to NetCDF. The information here is too specific to warrant it's own article, and although there is still debate on how spinouts notability should be measured, I still believe that every article must independently meet notability standards, and the conventions themselves in my opinion do not. Note that 1. I favour a selective merge, and 2. deletion is not an option when merging per GFDL compliance. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. . In addition to the points raised in the discussion, his most popular book is held by only 31 libraries. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanford Holst

a non-notable author whose books appear to be self-published. They are the only books published by Sierra Sunrise, which at least has a website. I can find nothing about the existence of 'Cambridge and Boston Press'. No reliable sources in the article (phoenician.org has Atlantis, etc stuff). The 'research papers' are just presentations at conferences it seems. Doug Weller (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the author is simply not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With respects, it'd be a shame to delete a oft-cited expert. If The National Geographic thinks he's worth quoting he might be notable enough for Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 22:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a history researcher, he clearly fails WP:PROF. That fact is considered an expert by the publisher of one of his books is hardly surprising. One quotation on tsunamis in nationalgeographic.com doesn't make him an expert on Phoenicia either. VG ☎ 22:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I just came to the same conclusion as Vasile. One quote, that's all, and this press (which of course hails him as an expert) is a really, really small press--they've published two books. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The subject looks like an amateur who has begun writing research papers and books on his retirement. Since no evidence is given of the publication of his research papers in a reputable academic journal, I am unable to judge their merit; they could merely be typescipts sitting in his desk. Unless the article is substantially improved during the AFD period, it must be deleted. I am not suggesting that the subject may not have published valuable work, merely that the articel does not establish that it is valuable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~There may be something defective in the nomination, as this page is a redlink in the notice on the page itself.~~ 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope, that's just the way MediaWiki works sometimes. Purging the page with the AFD notice on it or simply waiting will fix the problem. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was early-closing deletion per WP:SNOW -- The Anome (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boiling bigots

No references and Google doesn't help me here. Info could be false. Also, insufficient context (northwest what? VG ☎ 05:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It sounds like a joke. Even if not a passing expression is not worth an encyclopedia article. Redddogg (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — complete and utter WP:BOLLOCKS. MuZemike (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Transparent hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina Top 40

Fake Countdown! This ranking is unofficial and false. There are so many songs charting that aren't successful, and it isn't only my point of view. The real charts of Argentina are:

Please delete this fake countdown, this insults me as argentinian.

(Sorry for my bad english)--200.117.198.204 (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Copied from this edit. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete An article can't be deleted because you disagree with the content. I can't find any mainstream media references in Google News. I'd be leaning towards a delete because of notability. MvjsTalking 06:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability. No citations, there would be an expectation of citations. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This ranking is unofficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.198.204 (talk • contribs)
Delete --Pablo323 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --200.45.187.154 (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability has been sufficiently established (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damned Good Show

NN book, fails WP:BK, no sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added two reliable source reviews to the article with citations and I have found another one shown below where I only have the abstract. This should prove that there are multiple sources providing critical commentary to satisfy WP:BK.
- Connelly, Mark. "How did they do it?." TLS (20 Dec. 2002): 20. Abstract: Reviews the book 'Damned Good Show,' by Derek Robinson.--Captain-tucker (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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} 21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With added RS reviews, article meets WP:NB item #1 (multiple reviews) MadScot (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are now 3 RS reviews, one in the TLS, above. I accept TLS alone as notability. DGG (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Blount

Notability? Avi (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lack of references. Quid Pro Quo²³ 04:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the information about her is correct she is notable. The article just needs some sources. Redddogg (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from a quick search there is [evidence to support notability http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-0nvsWQwd53I/sister_act_2_his_eye_is_on_the_sparrow/]. Needs a lot of work. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News search finds plenty of sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a google news search shows lots of articles behind pay walls, but the summary information makes it fairly clear that that Tanya Blount is either the primary subject, or more than a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with cleanup. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and Confucianism

Original research. (That doesn't mean that the points it asserts are not true, just that there is no source available to support them, which makes it entirely its author's opinions.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, and part of a series on homosexuality and various religions. Sources need to be found, it sounds like someone just wrote it out of what he already knew. Redddogg (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Confucianism is not a religion, it's a philosophy. 70.51.10.188 (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the modern day Chinese want to mix it with Marxism and that wouldn't work if you call it a religion. :-) Redddogg (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Redddogg. It needs referencing, but is encyclopaedic. While Confucianism is not a religion per se, the article's editors have chosen to link it in to the series on homosexuality and religion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Redddogg and Beeswaxcandle. The article admittedly needs referencing and improvement, but it's an eminently encyclopædic article (at least in its potential). Maethordaer (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 09:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 09:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 09:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The topic seems indeed notable enough [29], [30], but the current article is first hand analysis of religious texts, which is a prime venue for original research. This article has been without reference for three years, which doesn't bode well, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for now. Relying on published scholar analysis in this area is much better. Looking at Homosexuality_and_Christianity, you can pretty much spin it as you like. VG ☎ 16:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up as needed per WP:AFD - "If an article can be fixed through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AFD". -- Banjeboi 17:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I actually like the topic and the content, and I am sorry to see it go. However, it is entirely unreferenced and has been so for a long time. No one has added proper sources to the article despite long-standing requests for them. So, as much as I think it could have been an acceptable article, WP policy is no sources, no article. Folks who created it have had their chance to source it and have not. Unfortunate. — James Cantor (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't delete because no sources are on an article, we delete because no sources exist that anyone is aware. Are you stating that you have looked and no sources even exist? -- Banjeboi 02:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belnan

No kind of references whatsoever, no notability, not even links to other pages. Quid Pro Quo²³ 04:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally all towns and villages seem to be notable, no matter how boring the article. Redddogg (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All it needed was a little TLC. It should be moved to Belnan, Nova Scotia to conform with Canadian naming conventions, BTW. Grutness...wha? 22:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, as it appears to be a unique name, it qualifies for undisambiguated title WP:CANSTYLE. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, OK - I thought the rule was that all communities had their province names attached, but if not then it's fine where it is. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst merge to Communities in the Halifax Regional Municipality. There is no reason to delete. It is WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Redddogg. Mvjs Talking 12:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Croman Corporation. MBisanz ^talk 08:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Croman Heliport

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Just like the others. The sources listed are directory listings which do not establish notability. Delete or merge to Croman Corporation. Undead Warrior (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A heliport is not so notable. I get the picture of someone looking for a place to land his helicopter while the co-pilot has a laptop and is searching WP to find a heliport. Redddogg (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Croman Corporation--Trashbag (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of private-use airports in Oregon instead. It's not notable enough for its own article, but it is useful to have a list of airports in the region, famous or otherwise. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Croman Corporation. I'd oppose merging to the list as the list is a table and it would give undue weight to a single entry. Katr67 (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, what i really meant was, blank the page and redirect to the list, one row on the list with a link to a map is plenty weight, and replace the link to the blanked page with a link to Croman Corporation. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Croman Corporation. Non-notable on its own. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DMacks as a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logam Mulia

Blatant advertising / notability. Not eligible for speedy or for prod, as it first received a prod for notability which was removed by the article creator. Maethordaer (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Indonesia#Indonesia Satu Suro 04:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment No apparent attempt at wikifying the article appears to have occured despite the prod - if it is a notable Indonesian company it could be saved in minutes flat with WP RS - the creator has made no attempt at putting in reliable 3rd party resources - I am placing this comment first before supporting a keep or delete - in case i find material during the duration of this afd that would swing me either way Satu Suro 04:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A good primary resource would be the company's own website (logammulia.com) from which this WP page is cut'n'pasted. I'll just G12 it so we can get on with our lives. DMacks (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Rock Hollow

Procedural nomination: after placing an AFD tag on the article, User:Cmichael only left ADW notices on three editors' talk pages and made some small modifications to the article for the county in which this hollow is located. The article is about a small hollow in Greenbrier County, West Virginia, and Cmichael's apparent reason for nomination (as expressed in the edit summary for the edit in which he placed the tag) is "What makes this hollow notable? I don't know." Please replace my commentary etc. in this nomination with Cmichael's reasoning if he coems here to explain his reasons for submitting this article to AFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've explained reasons, I'll say Keep: small hollows surely aren't major geographical features that are inherently notable, but this place seems to have enough sources to demonstrate minor notability. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article makes no claim of notability. There are a lot of hollows in West Virginia. Why is this one special? WVhybrid (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I believe that it does because (1) streams, etc. can be notable — thus that's the assertion of notability, being a geographic feature, and (2) its multiple reliable sources demonstrate notability that's claimed. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do we really want to start writing articles for every WV hollar just yet? We have so much to do first. No prej. against recreation down the line, though. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do believe you're becoming an Incrementalist :) Grutness...wha? 01:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just wanna finish all of the podunks and rivers in West Virginia first. youngamerican (wtf?) 03:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to Nyttend, I believe I left an AFD notice for every editor that wasn't an obvious bot. If I left anybody out, I apologize for that oversight.

I have been a fairly frequent contributor to the Greenbrier County article over time. My recent edits are only my latest.

Per WP:NGL, the guidelines on notability for geographic features are not yet settled. If a consensus eventually forms around Option 1, then Cat Run Hollow and every other named geographic feature in the world would be considered notable. If the consensus eventually favors Option 3, then Cat Run Hollow might or might not be included. On the other hand, if the consensus forms around Option 2, which I would personally favor, then Cat Run Hollow would be excluded.

The only other article that links to this one is the one for Greenbrier County, WV, where the hollow is apparently located. All of the other links on that page are to far more notable articles. Cat Run Hollow sticks out in the list for its lack of notability.

The articles on the Greenbrier River, Beartown, Greenbrier State Forest, Greenbrier River Trail, and other geographic features could still use a lot of work, and no one would argue that Cat Run Hollow compares to any of them in notability.

Unless there is something special about Cat Run Hollow that I don't know about, I just don't think we should water down an encyclopedia by opening this door right now. If we do, then I could just as well write an article about Court Street, which is simply an ordinary residential street in Lewisburg where I used to live, and claim that it is notable because it appears on many, many maps. Cmichael (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that all major geographic features are inherently notable, just like (for example) all professional athletes are notable. However, to use a biography example, I don't believe this hollow is any more notable than an amateur sportsperson: just like the amateur sportsperson isn't inherently notable, this hollow isn't inherently notable, but both are notable if and only if they have enough sources to make them notable anyway. I've supported keeping this article because I believe it's notable, not because it's an inherently notable place, but because it has multiple reliable sources that suffice for verification as required by our notability policies. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, what are these "multiple reliable sources?" All I see are a listing in a database which was taken from a topo map, and another database listing that shows the stream is known to the EPA. Hardly evidence of notability, IMHO.

To carry on your "notable people" analogy, I am no professional athlete or major league politician, but I am known by family and friends. Furthermore, I do have an email address, and I am listed in the telephone book. Does that mean that an article about me would meet notability criteria? I think not. Cmichael (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The EPA listing and the USGS topo map are what I mean — they're multiple reliable sources. BLP concerns mean that simple listings like this for people aren't as significant (hence you're not notable) as listings for other subjects. Nyttend (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:NGL will eventually be controlling. If the community establishes a consensus around option 1, I would be willing to reconsider, but for now, I say Delete. Cmichael (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As is only reasonable, seeing that you're the real nominator :-) Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several days ago I asked for an explanation of why this particular hollow is notable. The reply that this place is notable just because it exists or that it is listed in some database just doesn't hold water. Let's look at the reference links. One of the links is an record of a EPA water sample point location, that, guess what, the EPA hasn't sampled. If we use this database of as proof a notability, then every sewer pipe in the country country would be notable, because, rest assured, the EPA has database record of each and every one. The other link is just as obtuse. It is a record from a GIS data base that seems to contain hundreds of thousands of geographic locations. Is every sidewalk intersection in every city notable? Is every hollow notable? Clearly not. If evidence is shown that something notable happened in this hollow, say of a notable crime or of the homestead of a notable West Virginia, then this hollow might then be notable. But listing in a database of EPA sample points or US Geographic Survey GPS locations does not inherently make the location notable. WVhybrid (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there something into which the entire article can be merged? This info is too good to lose, but, sheesh, I'm still not ready to write about my 27 favorite hollars withing 30 mins of my parents house. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: little more to say about this than that it exists. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredible Adventures of Captain Taylor

I did a Google search and came up with a big goose egg for both this book series and "Andrew J Cole" (supposedly a science fiction writer) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried the first book title in Google Books and in a variety of English language virtual catalogues: no results. N p holmes (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability. Nothing turns up in searches at British Library or at Abebooks in author's name or titles. Eddie.willers (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either hoax or a mix of crystalballery and WP:NFT. I did find "the first chapter of my new novella" when searching for the first book's title, though I couldn't decide whether that hit was related. Huon (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either outright hoax or hopelessly non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A hoax. It appears Captain Taylor isn't all that incredible. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps Captain Taylor is Leutenant Charlie Feng's commanding officer :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Captain Tylor is Irresponsible, not Incredible :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Female protagonists in Disney animated films

Page has not been improved upon since this page's last afd in 2005. In some cases, those listed on the page fall under WP:OR as they are not protagonists but secondary characters. Where is the matching Male protagonists in Disney animated films page? WP:NOT an arbitrary collection of lists... and this page is only linked to from one other place on WP, so its overall importance is questionable in that regard as well. SpikeJones (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems have the purpose of putting information together to make a point. Interesting but not what an encyclopedia is all about. If someone wants to write an article on women in Disney they have to do the research themselves, and then publish it outside WP. Redddogg (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm having trouble seeing the point of this list (where many of the entries are hardly "protagonists", e.g. Maid Marion in Robin Hood). That films have important female characters is hardly a distinguishing factor... I'm having a hard time thinking of a film without one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2, 4, 8, 9, and 10. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant listcruft. Eddie.willers (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I am not in favor of keeping this article as is, this can be a workable topic. See this book that could be used in a prose article and not just a roll call of fictional characters. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - IMHO, this case perfect meets point no 1 of Wikipedia:Listcruft. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 20:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...um, many of the characters on the list are in fact antagonists. :/ There could be an article here, as Erik says, but this ain't it. JuJube (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, if the title of the article could use a better name then deletion is not the solution. It looks like a list of female Disney heroes and villains. If some entries don't belong on the list they can be taken off. If you want a matching Male protagonists in Disney animated films you should create one. Alot of these characters appear to have articles so I think a list is fine. The book Good Girls and Wicked Witches: Women in Disney's Feature Animation by Amy Davis[31] that Erik brought up would be a good source in this article. --Pixelface (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work on a little; probably retitle per Pixelface. . An appropriate list, and Erik's ref is enough to refute those who think, however incorrectly, that there has to be a work specifically on the topic of the list itself. DGG (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someone wants to create an actual article about this topic, he's free to. But this is just a pretty pointless list, and I don't see any use in it. --Conti|✉ 12:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unreferenced, also concurring with the nomination rationale. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 subject was not covered in a non-trivial way by reliable sources. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos F. Rivas

Notability concerns. He is a non-notable mid-level leader in a church: an "area seventy" in the LDS Church. As far as area seventies go, there are several hundred in the world; it is a part-time volunteer position; they serve on a volunteer basis for 5 or so years, i.e., there is no life tenure. Major sources are limited to the Church News and a book, both of which are published by Deseret Morning News, which is an entity owned by the LDS Church. Other sources are passing mentions on the internet regarding his service in the church. I can't find a source which even says he is the only Salvadoran that olds the office of "seventy" of the church, so that is probably based on WP:OR. Other similar articles on area seventies have been deleted after discussion; see here, here, here, here, and here. (This article was tagged with {PROD} based on these precedents, but creator removed {PROD} without providing reasons in the edit summary or on talk page.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not dealt with the fact that Rivas is distict and different from those mentioned above. As the head of an agency related to Enterprise Mentoring, Rivas has notability as a business man in El Salvador.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable for this as demonstrated by what non-LDS Church related sources? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep", The previous precednet are based on inadequate understanding of the role of Area Seventies. What do you mean by saying it is "voluntary". Does this mean if the position were to be full time and with clear ability to be assigned by church leaders anywhere in the world it would be acceptable. I also think that your insistance that a source has no value if it is not LDS related is unsupportable. The fact is that Enterpeise is an independent organization that is not controlled by the LDS Church. People leading it have validity. Also, I have in the article cited sources that have no connection to the LDS church and in fact do not even understand the LDS Church and so misrepresent events, but they clearly show that due to his interactions with the president of El Salvador, Rivas has become noted as the voice of the church in El Salvador. I have to object to the current assumptions about independence in Wikipedia, because these give anti-LDS sources a preference over LDS sources. This anti-establishment bias is als evident in other contexts, but it is a bias, and should not be given such great support.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a part-time, volunteer position. Meaning the people who do it keep their regular employment and do area seventy duties in their spare time and without remuneration. That's just one factor that can help editors assess the importance of this position and those who hold it. No one in the position even does it full time, so it gets trickier to say holding that position confers notability. I nominated the previous ones for deletion and, believe me, I fully understand the role of area seventies in the LDS Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally the attack on anything that is "LDS Church Related" has now included a disbarring of use of Mridian Magazine as an independent source. However this magazine is neither controlled nor operated by the LDS Church, and so should be considered independent, with its statements given equal weight with any other independent publication. Unless the people in question are on the board of Meridian or operate it, than clearly they are not in control of it.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "anti-LDS" bias—and who said Meridian was disbarred from anything? I don't appreciate the insinuation that I (or is it someone else?) am performing an "attack on anything that is LDS Church related". I would appreciate some assumptions of good faith. It's just that to establish notability we need sources that do so that are not controlled by the LDS Church. Meridian is not controlled by the LDS Church, but look at his mention in that source: it's tiny—only his name and age and place of residence are mentioned in a list of area seventies beginning their tenure. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. As it stands, this is a biographical account of Señor Rivas's involvement with the LDS, but it makes no claim as to how or why that involvement is notable, or of sufficient note to be considered for inclusion as encyclopaedic. I do not consider this article meets WP:BIO in its present form. Eddie.willers (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that people in calling for the deletion of aricles on Area Authority Seventies have used attack words like "cult" I feel no reason to assume good faith. It is evident that some of the people who seek the deletion of these articles do so to advance their anti-LDS goals. It is also very frustrating to see the work and effort I have put in to creating articles like this totally disregarded. I have to admit in some ways I am most frustrated by the deletion of the article on Wolfgang Paul, where we had a full time position, mentions from books that were prepared without church supervision, many mentions of his role as first mission president in East Germany, and I had pointed out another book that is sure to have mentioned him even more, but people just dissed the whole thing. I guess I am most frustrated by the assumption that mention in artacles in the Church News, no matter how in depth and no matter how often, and no matter the fact that these may reflect the fact that meetings in Utah recognize the efforts of Carlos Rivas in helping people in El Salvador, that none of this is seen as mentions and notice that is independent of Rivas. You may claim a lack of bias, but you insulting tone in response to my statement about him being a noted business man in El Salvador is not the type of thing that says you accept any validity on the part of the Church News.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, I strongly encourage you to begin assuming good faith. I have never said the LDS Church is a "cult". I don't have any "anti-LDS goals". I'm a member of the Latter Day Saint WikiProject and have contributed much to the project. If you recall, I spoke up for "keeping" the Wolfgang Paul article. The problem with the Church News as a source is it is published by the organization that he's directly involved with. WP needs independent sources to establish notability. This is not diminishing the value of Church News, it's simply recognizing that it's not independent of the LDS Church. I also didn't intent to insult you in questioning what sources there are to establish his notability as a businessman. It was a sincere question—I'm not aware of any non-LDS Church sources that are available that would establish his notability in this area. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 08:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO on the grounds of notability. Sure, the guy exists, and maybe even was mentioned once in the news in El Salvador... but other than that, he's just another businessman or religious deacon. No hard feelings though -- I mean, if he ever does anything really worth noting in major press, then sure, toss him up here... but for now, gg the page. My .02 JasonDUIUC (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 00:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Days Of Samsara

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What documentation needs to be provided to make this band legitimate in the eyes of Wikipedia?

I realize that as an "underground" sort of thing, hardcore and punk tend to not garner the same level of media exposure as other popular acts, but there ought to be relativistic standards. i.e. bands, or rather genres of music, that have/has typically eschewed popular media shouldn't be expected to be as obviously present in those outlets.

Take for example Tragedy who have no MySpace page or official website due to their take on capitalism, the internet, etc. The band is clearly relevant but online there exists little official/verifiable information because they operate outside of the conventional band/touring/promotion network for socio-political reasons. They are _essentially_ "punk" in that regard, but you're likely not going to see them getting front page coverage on CNN.com or other large/commercial news sites.

Here's a few links of interest. If there are criteria that need to be met, please let me know and I will attempt to source additional information.

- worldDownInFire (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first 6 sources aren't reliable and Wikipedia can't be used a source. Read WP:MUSIC.Schuym1 (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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} 03:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Huon (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if that's all there is as far as reliable sources go, there's no way this could be an article. And the main claim of notability (small-venue touring) is extremely weak anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. If a band deliberately goes out of the way to be inaccessible and avoid notice, and succeed, then they are non-notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Alisharan

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

This actor has only had one major role and I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. GNews gives only local stories (about him becoming a student). Even the celebrity gossip sites have almost nothing on him. I would have thought that a mojor role would lead to notability, but it seems not to be the case.08:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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} 03:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, apparently none to be found except for his study-related activities (and that's a single local paper, for all I can tell). Huon (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Notability questionable, two years of article and no content. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, the notability for this person does not exist. Hence the lack of sources. JBsupreme (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Dda Gareth

Fails notability test. Closest that it can come to is use in schools, and no evidence or citation to demonstrate that. billinghurst (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article does cite a BBC review of the book so it's not a clearly non-notable. The article hasn't been tagged for references so it would seem to make more sense to give it time for improvement first. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tagged it for references. I also note that the review is in Welsh, so I am not sure that it can demonstrate significant notability for English Wikipedia. The article is less than a stub as the reference is as long as the article, has progressed nowhere and there is no connection to an author page. There has been no response here by the initial contributor. billinghurst (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is no restriction on the language for sources. English is preferred for the English Wikipedia, but that does not preclude the use of non-English sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the reasons mentioned in my nomination. billinghurst (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no need to state delete again. That's a given as you are the nominator and aren't doing this on procedural grounds. -- Whpq (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, the coverage in the BBC review is not enough to demonstrate notability. Icewedge (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep widely used textbooks are notable; but i cannot read the review, so I cannot tell if there is evidence for it. DGG (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Can someone give us a summary of the review in English? The BBC review is in Welsh (me thinks). VG ☎ 12:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- cy Wikipedia article doesn't have much more than the current en article.
- Amazon UK sells the book, but doesn't have any reviews in English. [32]. VG ☎ 12:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The BBC review review really takes it past WP:N; if only by the skin of its teeth. I see no reason to not follow the usual standards in this case. Wily D 12:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music in the 1990s

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FastAnt

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

Fails WP:CORP. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to meet inclusion criteria wrt WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Taylor Bloxham. If Google news is right they are the "the facilities management division of Leicester printer Taylor Bloxham". There are some ghits about them, but they're too weak for a separate article. Even their parent company has some trouble establishing notability on Wikipedia. VG ☎ 03:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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} 21:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Sanchez (music)

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

No particular evidence of notability for Sanchez or his album Unmerited. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Given the number of times this has been relisted it could have been prodded and nobody would have noticed. Also, Google is hopeless for finding sources due to US Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. VG ☎ 04:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any sources when I checked the internet. Eatabullet (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 POP TV. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by POP TV

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

Classic breach of WP:NOTDIR. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTDIR, and while you're at it, delete all the other articles in Category:Lists of television series by network too... Somno (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant shows to POP TV. This isn't an area I edit, but Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television_Stations#Article_structure indicates that notable shows should be mentioned in the article about the TV station. Obviously the list needs some pruning. VG ☎ 04:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the lack of sourcing for this list means that it fails WP:V.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per VG. Souces almost certainly exist, but as a Slovenian network, sources are probably in Slovene and not as easy to find on the Internet as they might be for, say, List of programs broadcast by NBC. But this list is not so large that it would be unreasonable to merge it with the POP TV article. DHowell (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewind: The Best in Old Skool Garage

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 15:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert-like article with no sources. At the third relist it's pretty clear that nobody is going to add them. VG ☎ 04:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Eatabullet (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Zwecker

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

The man's written a few books; anything else to indicate notability? Biruitorul ^Talk 03:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 04:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor author of unknown works. -- Y not? 12:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a non-notable rabbi; the external links/sources don't assert any notability for this person. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - had a hard time finding anything truly notable about this person.Eatabullet (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sources to be seen. Huon (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles G. Hulse

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

No references; I couldn't find much on Google either. Biruitorul ^Talk

It's pretty easy to find his book on Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/Tall-Cotton-Charles-Hulse/dp/0758201214

03:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bio without sources and it looks like nobody is going to add any either. VG ☎ 04:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems to have written numerous works, though I had a hard time gauging how well-known/significant they are. Perhaps someone more familiar can help. Eatabullet (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the article claims he's written numerous works, but can you or anyone else point to some mention of them outside this article? Biruitorul ^Talk 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you Google it, you can find a wide variety of his books mentioned. Admittedly I haven't researched it in depth but its definitely showing up in my search results.Eatabullet (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, we can't just go around keeping unsourced biographical articles on a whim. JBsupreme (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has written several books, published by major publishing houses. In Tall Cotton Google Books Amazon is published by Kensington Books, which we have an article on, apparently the 7th largest publisher in the United States. The Google Books scan sports a Publishers Weekly review comment on its back cover. He also wrote The Good Life Google Books Amazon in a collaboration with Gordon Merrick, whom we have an article on. It was published by Alyson Publications, which we also have an article on; it's not as big as Kensington, but neither is it a vanity press. The other books I can't find quickly, but I don't have to, that's enough. --GRuban (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial sources about the author. This appears to be a problem still. RFerreira (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Princeton University says it has a lengthy newspaper article which describes Hulse's acquaintance with Merrick and their life together. So sources exist. --GRuban (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, these papers seem to be more about Merrick than Hulse though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per seeming lack of nontrivial third-party coverage. I am uneasy about any unsourced BLP, and this one is no exception. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Mafia

Hip-hop group, no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC and no WP:RS. Record labels associated with this ensemble are all red-linked. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination - fails WP:MUSIC, only edited by two SPA editors. Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:MUSIC as it is, and sources don't seem forthcoming. VG ☎ 04:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Eatabullet (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MapNTL.com

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

Fails WP:WEB. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found references to establish notability. VG ☎ 15:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the scarcity of sources about African websites, the fact that I easily found a couple of references that cover this business in depth (e.g. "the planimetric accuracy of the Lagos street map used for mapntl.com is about 1m. Each street in the database has a name, a suburb, the speed limit, and direction. The roads are classified into Express, Major and Minor roads. This level of accuracy and quality is the direct result of the fact that STL literally drives through the street of Lagos to collect the field attributes used to develop the road network data"), makes me think that the company is a legit major GIS provider for Nigeria, so I say it should be kept. VG ☎ 04:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 04:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per VasileGaburici. -- Banjeboi 16:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shaenon K. Garrity. The merge has been performed, with a redirect left to the target page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smithson (webcomic)

No evidence of notability, tagged for a year. Time to go. `'Míkka >t 20:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect or something in-between to the article on Shaenon Garrity, the writer of the comic. Jeremiah (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge over to Shaenon Garrity. --Dragonfiend (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dragonfiend. VG ☎ 04:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested (although that article itself seems pretty marginal). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roll On (Kid Rock song)

AfDs for this article:

Song hasn't charted yet. Yes, it has been released, but it still hasn't charted and I can't find any sources. Wouldn't make a good redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Music Video is airing on cmt,vh-1,mtv for the last week their's your proof its a single. It rubs 4:52 it also the 1st video that comes for search under him at you tube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovingangster (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue isn't proof that it exists, that is without doubt, but whether it is notable enough to have it's own article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously this is a single!!! I think it shouldn't be delete. --200.117.198.204 (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into the main album article. Eatabullet (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The single, and the video in particular, actually has received a fair amount of press. I've added six references just now. There's enough there for the general notability guideline. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sourcing supplied by User:Paul Erik as noted above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. whether or not to merge him with his books is an editorial decision that doesn't require continued AfD discussion. There's clearly no-consensus to delete. TravellingCari 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark W. Smith

Started by an IP in 2004. No assertation of notablity and no sources (aside from his own book). A google search for "Mark W. Smith" turns up 19,000 of mostly unrelevant hits. He has two books (2004, 2006) of unknown importance. Also up for deletion is his 2004 book Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, which doesn't have a single source either.

Redirects: Disrobed: The New Battle Plan to Break the Left's Stranglehold on the Courts, The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, and Mark W. smith.We66er (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions, the list of Literature-related deletion discussions, the list of Authors-related deletion discussions, the list of Living people-related deletion discussions, list of Politics-related deletion discussions, and the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 04:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn lawyer with one book. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and both articles seem to be written to promote his book. Redddogg (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has more Notes than votes. RMHED (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep His book - Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy was a New York Times bestseller [33] and therefore meets WP:BK. As for the article on Mark W. Smith, he is notable under WP:CREATIVE, bullets 3 and 4 as well as meeting the basic criteria at WP:BIO for notability. For the third and fourth bullet points, his book was a New York Times bestseller. For the basic criteria, he "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." He has been interviewed on CNN [34], Fox News[35] (both about subjects other than his books), by the CPAC director at Human Events [36], is described as a "prominent free-market conservative" by the National Journal [37], --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Philosopher. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per the reasons given by Philosopher. JasonDUIUC (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- because of the points raised by Philosopher. Reyk _YO! 01:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--but boy that article needs cleaning up. I'll take punctuation, who's got the rest? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect both books into Mark W. Smith. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 already by Orangemike as A1. VG ☎ 04:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poptimal

No independently-published reliable sources to demonstrate notability RJaguar3 | u | t 02:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This articles should NOT be deleted because it has substantially similar notability to other entries. Specifically, the following three articles are similar in notability have not been deleted:

Survivor Sucks
BuddyTV
Television Without Pity

As such, fairness requires this article to NOT to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zublaw (talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Criminal Minds episodes. MBisanz ^talk 08:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt (Criminal Minds)

Google shows there is no information about these episodes from reliable sources (only blogs and episode guides). The individual episodes are not notable. There is already a brief outline of the episodes at List of Criminal Minds episodes and simply redirecting these articles to there makes little sense - no reader is going to type in one of these article titles as a search term. Somno (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination also includes:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Somno (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's a lot. Each and every one has been checked to see that they don't have any RS coverage? My first instinct would be to just merge them into the List of Criminal Minds episodes. You may want to do that, and if it 'sticks', withdraw the AfD. Otherwise it is possible that a bundle nomination this big might get closed as keep just due to how unwieldy it might be to pick out individual elements. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly (for my real life, anyway! ;), I did check each one on Google and only came up with blogs and episode guides. Even the season final and first episode back (but then, even the pilot episode doesn't have its own article). I'm not a fan of bundling, but I believe these articles all have the same level of RS coverage, and that therefore bundling was preferable to creating separate AFDs and flooding the page. Somno (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, figured I would ask. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destroy them all! — Each and every one of those articles is nothing more than the common two-sentence lead introduction, not to mention none of them are sourced. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MuZemike (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Criminal Minds episodes. Before or after deletion, doesn't matter to me. I don't think this falls under WP:NOT as we have episode articles for other shows. It is just that we shouldn't really spin episode articles out without some RS coverage. Protonk (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into or Redirect to the Criminal Minds article. Eatabullet (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Salvage anything important. No need for all these articles. Computerjoe 's talk 19:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable episodes mostly consisting of just an infobox and a sentence. Not even useful as likely redirects. RMHED (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I disagree with the nom that these are implausible search terms. In any case, anything worth keeping should be merged. IMO, television episodes that aren't (in)famous for some reason shouldn't get articles. JuJube (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all an non-notable, allow creation of list article, but do not redirect. The parantheses make them very unlikely search terms (searcher would need to write the exact title, searching "doubt ciminal minds" does not find the article!), and some are notable terms in thermselves.Yobmod (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Criminal Minds episodes improving on the basic plot summary that is already there. Deletion is highly unnecessary but do at least salvage some of the good information that has come out of the hard work of whomever to created them. Perhaps a series/season summary similar to that of 24 (season 1) would be best suited to television shows? --82.42.150.196 (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Criminal Minds episodes. Would not be opposed to a Merge of any relevant information if there is anything that can be salvaged from these articles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Magnetic resonance imaging. Sandstein 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems in medical imaging

There are no notability criteria for inclusion in this article and I doubt there could be meaningful ones. This is a POV-fork of medical imaging and anything that could potentially be listed here would be much better discussed in that article or left out. As the current content already indicates, this article will most probably develop into a subjective mess of vague wishes and speculations. The related articles unsolved problems in medicine (deletion discussion) and unsolved problems in biology (deletion discussion) have long been deleted for related reasons. Without accepted inclusion criteria, this article should be deleted. Cacycle (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 04:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to MRI. I don't get why this has been created as a separate article because it's too short: just one issue with one source. VG ☎ 04:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete - most of the information here is already in MRI#Acoustic noise. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge See no need for a separate article - Medical imaging is certainly not bursting at the seams in need of a break up otherwise MRI seems to cover most of it. MvjsTalking 08:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information and then delete, no such article could be written that would not constitute Original Research. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Everybody has a different opinion about what are unsolved problems in medical imaging, I don't think this article could ever be encyclopedic. But please come over to the MRI page and help out - we could use some extra hands ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lukas Rossi. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Electric

Not notable, tagged for almost 2 years, rationale given in talk but still fails, imo. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect to Lukas Rossi. Fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn and unsigned group. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This band doesn't seem to be notable. Eatabullet (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Lukas Rossi. Notable in the sense that they have a famous frontman, but not for any other reason as far as I can tell. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict neutral

AfDs for this article:

Previously speedied for copyvio, stitll has major WP:POV and WP:RS issues (tag was removed by a SPA account) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is also a wp:neo with some soapboxing to boot. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam by Ethical Diamonds Ltd trying to establish "conflict neutral" as a neologism. Somno (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A WP:COATRACK neologism to hang advertisement on. VG ☎ 04:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds laudable, but no independent third-party sources given. A gsearch for "conflict neutral" gives about seven different companies in the first forty hits who all claim (with the same words) to have originated the term. Looks like spam to me. Most of the other ghits in the range are either duplicates, or blog-comments that appear to originate with the company concerned. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswathi Sabatham

Fails WP:MOVIE. Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 09:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'd be inclined to turn it into a stub, but I can't find any sources to back it. An Indian film in wide release would be notable, I think - but the fact that it is a 1966 film hampers sourcing. Hell, I'll write the stub right now, and maybe someone can source it and salvage the article. "{{Unreferenced}} Saraswathi Sabatham is an Indian film directed by A.P. Nagarajan. It was released in 1966. {{India-film-stub}}" That's really it, I think. There is an IMDB page for it (here), so we know it exists. Hmm.UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This Google snippet shows that the film was a box office hit and this implies that it would be well-known to The Hindu's readership, but I can't find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third party publications. Wikipedia is not a primary source. JBsupreme (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, film starred Sivaji Ganesan, who is notable, and was directed by A. P. Nagarajan, who is notable. According to Nagarajan's article, this film "started a trend in Tamil film making" (however, that claim is unsourced). There must be sources out there for this; just probably not many in Google due to the age of the film. Somno (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While cleaning up the article, I found it stars a number of other notable actors, so hopefully that's enough to keep the article while sources are found. Somno (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 04:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Famous movie. The only thing that could be held against it was formatting and references and that has been taken care of now. Tintin 06:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Can someone from India Film step up with better sourcing? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable movie involving high profile aactors. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Sex City

I don't see how this meets Notability for Magazines. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - no notability. Only work by an anonymous editor and one registered SPA editor. Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references are two blogs and a mention in passing, and I can't find any independent, reliable sources on Google. A DVD magazine that's only been released in one issue isn't worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Somno (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VG ☎ 04:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Now that the copyvio has been removed, and per the sources provided by User:Megaboz Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Address

This is probably copyrighted, but if it isn't, it should be posted at Wikisource. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 17:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's inevitably 'copyrighted', since copyright doesn't need to be asserted in order to apply. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly doesn't belong at Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, even if released into the public domain (which I doubt, and the author has not claimed). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Stubbify. Remove the posible copywrite violation and keep the introduction. The "segregation now" comment is famous and notable. JASpencer (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the intro is so short, I wonder if a separate article is motivated. What about just merging this into the George Wallace article?Bill (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an article about the speech, which is easily notable enough to warrant its own article. Everyking (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the Wallace article. WillOakland (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection now, redirection tomorrow, redirection forever! To George Wallace as he would say. MuZemike (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep His speech is notable enough to have an article of its own. There are sources available which cover the background and history of the speech itself such as [38]. Sources can also be found for the impact and results of the speech [39]. Martin Luther King Jr. specifically responded to it in one of his own speeches: [40] --Megaboz (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The speech is a famous incident in American history, and of significant historical import. RayAYang (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the info from Megaboz. Edward321 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Tietlebaum

Delete - minor criminal, did not do any famous crimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lansing3456 (talk • contribs)
Weak keep. The article doesn't have much information, but the references suggest that he may be notable enough. I'd suggest a merge with Bug and Meyer Mob but this individual was also associated with other crime gangs. It's only a 2-sentence article, so maybe it could be merged with all of the other articles mentioned. =Axlq 03:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources can be supplement by the many in GN archive [41], [42] . Its better to check these things before nomination for deletion. I note this resource was not widely available when the article was written--finding the material would have then meant actually going to a library. DGG (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to be notable (though arguably not famous). I found multiple references on the internet and there seems to be verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Eatabullet (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Many people arrested for DWI will also be in the paper many times. They, like this guy are simply not notable. What did he really do? Committed some crimes? Big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowandpurple (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a "major player in the underworld" according to [43] --Megaboz (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Central

Article reads like a press release or spam. ("Mr. Biyani says that some 15 such malls will be opened in various cities across the country". Thanks Mr. Biyani for your spam). No references. Article author removed unref tag and prod tag without addressing concerns. -Nard 14:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: add fact tags wherever reference is needed. --GDibyendu (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is bordering on spam but the development is definitely costly enough to be notable. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, nor encyclopedic, not to mentioned completed unreferenced. Eatabullet (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never go by the current draft. Evaluate only after research. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- References, notability, encyclopedic =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, they received a ticket for violating fire rules. That's some reference there. -Nard 01:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being sarcastic? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not being sarcastic. A link to a Google search does NOT INDICATE NOTABILITY per WP:GOOGLE. Those references aren't even all about the mall. Malls are not inherently notable. Sure there's a lot of businesses in them, so they make the papers once in awhile, but my hometown mall isn't even in Wikipedia. Let me ask you "keep" voters, do you actually intend to fix the article or are you just saying keep on principle? -Nard 10:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you analyzed my google link correctly. I filtered only news sources. And WP:GOOGLE does have provisions for such a filtered search.
I provided a generic link to prove that 1. reliable, 2. verifiable, and 3. independent secondary sources exist, not as a means to provide a condensed list of references. From this compendium of possible references, a claim to notability can be ascertained.
With regards to malls your hometown, I don't see how that is pertinent to this discussion.
AFD is a debate, not a pledge to take up cleanup tasks.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are endorsing keeping crap in Wikipedia then? "Oh yeah keep the article, it's crap, but maybe in 20 years someone will write a better article." The article, as it stands, is spam and should be speedily deleted. It does not meet any of the criteria for inclusion. Merely asserting, with a search engine list of results, that someone could write a better article is not sufficient. And incidentally, a good half those results were for entities other than this mall. -Nard 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would stop making fallacious assumptions, and stick to the point. AFD serves as a platform to debate the grey areas of notability, not a forum to dunk all articles because they are poorly written by authors unfamiliar to the wiki process. If notability is sufficiently ascertained, anyone can just courtesy blank offending "spammy" or unencyclopedic text to leave it as a stub article. May I once again point out that spammy text is not sufficient grounds to delete. To answer your comment on "in 20 years..." You might want to read WP:DEADLINE and also check the Wikipedia logo on the top left, that serves to remind us that the project is work in progress. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the reason that they recieved the "Ticket" and the entire "Plan 4 but built 5 theatres" fight makes this perticular mall notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment :Wow! They have WP articles on malls too!!(On a personal note, Hyderabad Central was the first mall I visited :-)) I'll not vote at present without verifying if there are some rules regarding notablility of commercial establishments. But I take exception to Nard's "Thanks Mr. Biyani for your spam" line. I hope he is not suggesting that Kishore Biyani is directly or indirectly involved in editing this article as a promotion for his mall. Kishore Biyani is one of India's most respected retail giants and among the first in the organised retail space. He features regularly in Indian business magazines(and quite frequently on the cover too). There is also a book about him. --Deepak D'Souza 06:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the Fallen Dreams

Fails WP:MUSIC. No chart hits, no extensive media coverage, only one album released, no proof of major national tour Nouse4aname (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Also nominate the incorrectly named non-notable album too, For the Fallen Dreams (album). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Oh yes, I was going to add the album in too, but forgot. Delete that too! Nouse4aname (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I think you should withdraw the AfD, because I'm curious how they're gonna name their second album...haha Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete artist and album. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There's actually quite a lot of google noise out there, loads of lyrics and torrents and whatnot, so they can't be total nonames. There's actually one in-depth review of the album at PopMatters, which I'd consider a reliable source. All others I turned up weren't published by reliable sources though, so I agree with the above and say
Delete, with no prejudice against recreation if more reliable reviews can be turned up. If it ends up being kept the album article should be renamed to Changes (For the Fallen Dreams album). --Amalthea^Talk 01:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-Valentine

Musician of questionable notability. Bringing it here after declining an A7 speedy tag. Sandstein 11:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, notability not evident, fails WP:MUSIC. WWGB (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Quid Pro Quo²³ 04:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. No notable work. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was {{csd-a7}}. Deleted as A7. Housekeeping. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian allen ksfy

TV journalist of dubious notability, bringing it here after declining an A7 speedy tag. Sandstein 10:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 anyway. No assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Mosley

Concerns about the sheer amount of unsourced bio info and cruft that has no relevence to notability if in fact there is any, has been tagged for clean up for sometime and not much is happening. Maybe a possible redirect. neon white talk 10:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is currently in poor shape, with unclear notability and WP:BLP violations. However she has received enough coverage in reliable source (for example [44] and [45] ) to be considered notable. --Megaboz (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are those show any independent notability from the group she belongs to, both are about Flyleaf not her. Remember notability is not inherited. To be considered notable there must be evidence of coverage independent of the group. see Wikipedia:Notability (music) --neon white talk 09:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs serious revision RogueNinja_talk 14:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain further. --neon white talk 17:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This article contains some non-trivial coverage of Mosley apart from Flyleaf. (Section beginning "Hey Dad, come over here", for about 1000 words). Source has been introduced to the article. CJPargeter (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As i pointed out before the coverage is not independent of the band. The question that you have to ask is would she have featured in this article had she not been part of a notable group? i think the answer is a definite no. It's reliant on her being part of a notable group with no suggestion that she is otherwise notable. --neon white talk 23:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge was considered, but given that none of these flavours are cited anywhere, I decided not to. This isn't to say that cited information on flavours cannot be added to Pringles at a later date. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pringles products

I know this list may be useful, but I don't think encyclopedias need a list like this, in the case of listing flavors of snack products. This is one of the lists that do not have a place in an encyclopedia. Mythdon (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid piece of information, just as much as the list of Coca-Cola varieties is in the article for said product. Does it need its own article? Probably not. Could it stand to be integrated into the main Pringles article? Definitely. --70.236.71.244 (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take your opinion as merge then. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main Pringles article, which is pretty short. VG ☎ 04:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verification. People can add some pretty silly flavors to this list without question, especially in smaller foreign countries. Any flavors for which a source can be found, (press release, Quarterly report, whatever) can be added to the Pringles article (so, possible partial merge vote, I guess). -Verdatum (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge Topic is probably a weak notable but the article lacks any citations and probably contains WP:OR. Any particularly notable flavours/products (with citations of course) could be added to the main article. Mvjs Talking 08:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalina

AfDs for this article:

The person is not notable. The page lacks WP:NPOV and WP:RS and contains a lot of peacock terms. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article does contain reliable sources, however I'm leaning towards deletion of this article. The article subject has previously requested the article be deleted also [46]. -- Longhair\^talk 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She also made comments at her talk page about the article. See here, here and here. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments were made well over 2 years ago and before the article was significantly cleaned up. JRG (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up? She complained back then that editors were invading her privacy by adding such detail as her surname within the article. Her surname is still within the article to this very day, right alongside her middle name. -- Longhair\^talk 07:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well - I didn't do that. The article has been added to by unregistered users since then. We could easily take it out and that would stop the privacy concerns. JRG (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems to have gotten national coverage, e.g. the Washington Post, though not a great deal of it. JJL (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To quote WP:1E "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a news article per se - it's an article talking about some notable early Youtube memes. These were actually put in a single article as a spinoff from the Youtube page (which I did) and which had a much better claim to notability - but people didn't like that - they put it back to the single pages such as this one. JRG (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest all these types of pages be put back into a single article like "Youtube memes" or something. Just have their name, YouTube name and a paragraph of why they were notable on that site. I don't think a whole page should have been created about her. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't object to that. YouTube phenomena is certainly a notable subject for an article. JJL (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to this either - I think it would be a better way to go; while I think the subject of this article is notable there isn't any way we can get a Good Article length article out of this. Is anyone willing to do this? Longhair and the Yellow Monkey certainly aren't when I asked. JRG (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't offer to help because as far as I care, the job is already done. She's listed at List of YouTube celebrities, and that's all it warrants IMHO. Compared to the likes of Tay Zonday, this girl hasn't really done anything notable. -- Longhair\^talk 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was a notable early Youtube meme when she first started blogging (and had one of the highest viewing rates) and there are verifiable sources showing that. She indicated the security concerns posed by Youtube itself when her account got hacked. The page has been fixed up multiple times in response to previous AfDs. The practice of repeatedly nominating for deletion should stop - there have already been 3 AfDs and the page has been kept (the third AfD was overturned). At the very least this should, if deleted, rate a sentence or two on the main page indicating this. Please note also that there are other Youtube memes on Wikipedia who are just as notable as she is and whose pages have been kept previously (and don't quote me OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I am very aware of it). JRG (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. -- Longhair\^talk 07:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? Why don't I quote policy for the sake of it too? JRG (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, another AfD on this article is not disruption in any way. I said what I said, consensus can and does change. The article has problems, and we're here to discuss those problems, again, just in case consensus has changed and all... -- Longhair\^talk 07:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD was about 2 years ago in which time Wikipedia has changed considerably. I don't see how the page has been kept for so long. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these is basically no possibility of anyone caring about this person in 2-3 years. Transient nn YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason for deletion. Why are you so in favour of deleting everything? The person is a good example of an early Youtube meme who was forced to leave the site because of privacy concerns - that's what the articles indicate. Whether she is notable or not in two years' time is of no concern. JRG (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. Look at all the articles on my watchlist- about 5000 and a whole pile of other stuff. What has this person done that is notable? Nothing. BEing in the newspapers doesn't make one notable, else we will have all manner of car crash victims, random people who opposed a housing development and people who did well in high school competitions and got top marks in Yr 12. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this is different - internet memes are different from a one-off car crash victim. The articles don't just cover a one-off incident. JRG (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She was stalked at YouTube, and she's being stalked here. We aim to do no harm to living subjects, remember? -- Longhair\^talk 07:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for deletion. The page should be semi-protected and watchlisted to keep out the vandals if that's the case. Other pages get attacked by fans too but they don't get deleted. JRG (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which "other pages" are these? Most likely they are very well known celebrities who have archived global or at least national success. That's why they don't get deleted, they have actually done something notable where millions of people know about their work. Emmalina however, was only notable inside of the YouTube community and for one thing only, a video. Even if the video was a "success", doesn't mean a wikiepedia article should be made for her. There are plenty of people on youtube who have had a "successful" video that don't have wikipedia pages.TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - according to my Factiva search, the October 07 edition of Wireless week magazine says that her videos were in the top ten most watched on the whole of the site over a 2006-7 period. JRG (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more or less per Longhair. Just being at the centre of a mildly successful internet meme (that everyone seems to have more or less forgotten about now) doesn't add up to notability, in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete flash-in-the-pan youtube meme that clearly had no memorability or cultural impact, even on youtube. Subject also wants it deleted, and there is no reason we shouldn't respect her wishes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence she still wants it deleted. That was 2 years ago. You need to stop quoting that like it was made last week. JRG (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:BLP1E. Notability is not temporary, so just deleting the title and content of Emmalina is out, but the usable content is more appropriately merged as part of other articles about internet fame phenomena or internet security, per BLP:1E. The bio pic should be deleted as a courtesy per her talk page wishes. I don't know for sure, but I imagine the previous Afd results concluding she warranted a bio pre-dated the creation of WP:BLP1E specifically (but WP:BLP was created in 2005). MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's not just notable for a one-off incident though - she had long-standing following as an early Youtube meme. And possibly still does (I can't find any 2008 figures). Thank you for being reasonable though and suggesting what everyone else should have done - that this information does belong somewhere. JRG (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She is not an internet meme, her profile has not entered popular culture or parlance like star wars kid. She is notable for her rapid rise to attention from a virtual nobody simply because of youtube and her unique style of video, and that led to a notable act of hacking and withdrawal from Youtube. But these two incidents do no amount to a notable bio, and are arguably 1 incident per WP:BLP1E, hence why just delete is not appropriate. In terms of notability and references, she is no internet celebrity, we don't use just youtube rankings to determing that sort of notability. MickMacNee (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, clearly not notable - simply a popular user at Youtube who pulled her account for understandable reasons. Orderinchaos 08:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than just popular - 9th most viewed user according to sources. While OTHERSTUFFEXISTS could be quoted, it is an important consideration that the other popular Youtube memes have WP pages. As I've said earlier, I'm not against a single page for this - but the information needs to go somewhere. JRG (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy please - because most people here I don't think could care less about improving the encyclopedia when policies such as WP:NOT#PAPER exist for potentially less relevant articles, and I believe have simply voted keep for the sake of following others without properly researching the notability, I would like to have the content userfied to find out a better place to put all the content on this page. JRG (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Come on guys. This is an easy BLP1E situation here. A you tuber is not going to be notable unless the event was extremely huge. This wasn't. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Define huge. The event she is notable for reached reliable sources, and deserves addressing per BLP1E: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. ... In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person". MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I'm stating is that she was known for one thing and then she was gone. Are there any news stories about her today? Is she still the focus of attention on the web? No. She did one thing and was recognized for it for a while. She is not a notable person. It's a simple one event case. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Read everything I've already said, I have not said she is a notable person. But you are reading BLP1E wrong with regard notability for an event, you said it yourself, this was a recognised (notable) event, hence it does not get wiped off the face of wikipidia in the name of 1E. And it bears repeating, notability, either as a person or for an event, does not fade away over time, what that is is fame. They are not the same. MickMacNee (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No this is silly. Then some high school kid who gets in the news for winning two different science competitions will get an article. Not notable. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Two high school science competitions? What has that got to do with anything I said? MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What he's saying is that if anyone does one event and it gets a decent amount of attention, then they would get an article by your rationale. If someone does one thing that is notable, and only one thing, that is not worthy of a page on an encyclopedia. It might be worth mentioning in a large article that encompasses many one hit wonder you tubers, but, it does not deserve it's own article. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a flash-in-the-pan in the news world and a simple case of a person known for one thing alone. Simply being in the news to the extent she has does not make here notable. She is not part of a meme, just another youtuber recovering from their 15 minutes of infamy - Peripitus (Talk) 02:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Undead Warrior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatabullet (talk • contribs) 05:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability beyond the one event, even if that event streched over a long time.Yobmod (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not one event though - did you even read the rest of the page? She was in the top ten youtube viewings for several years. Hardly "one event". And as I have said before I have no problem with a single article. JRG (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a disappointing article. Considering it's well-written and reasonably large, that's really saying something. I thought of nominating it a while ago, but I held off because of the inevitable "reliably sourced" comments. I'm sorry, but this is the first article I've read that has told me "there's nothing remotely interesting about the subject". Since the reliable sources are there, a blurb in List of YouTube celebrities would properly sum up the topic. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point being the result should then correctly be merge, not delete, as people don't seem to understand in here. If you delete it, then typing in Emmalina into wikipedia will get you nowhere, not List of YouTube celebrities or anywhere else that the sourced information belongs, per WP:BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No offense, but Emmalina is NOT a notable person so typing her name in Wikipedia should not take you anywhere. If she were notable, then she would be able to retain a page, but, her one event is not a notable one anymore. It was notable for a small while, but not anymore. And, if the result is delete, you can always redirect the page ti the list of youtube celebrities. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's your opinion only - but like most people on this page you haven't done a scrap of research - you just go straight off your own thinking. People spent time putting in work finding verifiable articles that show she had more than just "flash-in-the-pan" notability - but despite this good work it has to be spoiled by people who couldn't be bothered helping and improving the encyclopedia. You have no right to say things like that. JRG (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This article reads like nothing more than a myspace profile. What screams at me when I read this is "Why is this person on Wikipedia?". --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        NO offense, but I have the right to say things like that. It's not degrading to anyone in terms of notability guidelines on Wikipedia. She is not notable. It's simple. Tell me how she passes WP:RS. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bratz products

Not too encyclopedic or of value, any information of interest is already present at the article Bratz, though even that article could do with some improvement - but this one is not encyclopedic or noteworthy and not worth retaining. Cirt (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 00:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to existing articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert per pixelface. Verifiable easily, just needs cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the current article looks fairly unsalvageable and Bratz appears to cover this. No prejudice against recreation if the Bratz Lines section in the Bratz article gets too large. --Pixelface (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert to a version prior to 70.79.115.146 getting ahold of it. The list has been around for two years and seems to have really degraded since mid-September. This version from September 10 looks okay. Here is a comparison between that version and the current mess. I think a list of these is preferable to having individual articles on each product. --Pixelface (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the contents to an intelligible version. VG ☎ 04:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thayillum family

Unverifiable, provides no reliable independent sources, and none locatable via google. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means. --GDibyendu (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources in sight. VG ☎ 04:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. Eatabullet (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the editors who are all saying "no sources in sight" and variants read the article again. The second paragraph explicitly states the title, author, publisher, and year of publication of the book that this information is taken from. Note that the nominator here is addressing the reliability and independence of that source, not saying that the article does not cite anything. You are not helping the closing administrator by supplying weak rationales that are quite obviously contradicted by the article at hand. Please evaluate the source that is already cited, and also look for other sources. That is what will help the discussion to come to the correct decision. Uncle G (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being one of the oldest Christian families in Kerala is an insufficient claim for notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nassim Ait-Kaci

Seems to fail WP:N ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 01:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I have a great deal of respect for the achievements sound designers have made for computer games (their art really enhances the experience of playing). Unfortunately there does not appear to be any independent coverage of this person per WP:BIO. Being in the end credits is standard for being part of the production, but it is not notability. The closest thing to an adequate source is this article this one, but it's a blog and not acceptably reliable, especially for a BLP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having his name on the credits is a normal byproduct of his work, just like an academic would have his/her name on papers/books. That doesn't automatically confer him notability. VG ☎ 05:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Justa few credits. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyhoo! (band)

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. tomasz. 12:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think it is notable enough, read this [47] and you may agree. Jared Wiltshire (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt. sorry, but i don't think that amounts to anything more than a puff piece (non-reliable source) and i can't see anything to meet any of the WP:BAND 12 in there. tomasz. 08:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notes a small fanbase; cites many influences, but no tours or other ways to satisfy WP:BAND. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies for this relist. I was on the wrong log page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article, and the 2 albums, fail to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable per WP:MUSIC. Eatabullet (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldominion

Non-notable hip hop crew, fails WP:MUSIC -- lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if deleted, redirect to Old Dominion as plausible typo 70.51.10.188 (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: its no typo. "Oldominion" is the spelling of the group's name. I cannot speak toward WP:Music, but my search found stuff on them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Group has made no substantial contribution to hip-hop music and should therefore be deleted. Group has also not generated any significant media coverage (most sources trivial).

oldmic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.82.140 (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies for this relist. I was on the wrong log page --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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} 01:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Searching fails to bring up any non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has few references, does not explain why the subject is notable, and is mostly lists of information (WP:TRIVIA). Nat682 (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - btw nothing from MySpace should be linked to from Wikipedia Nat682 (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Myspace is not notable--Free way 8 03:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Vie Theatre

I don't believe this small Minnesota theatre company passes WP:ORG standards. The BackStage.com coverage cited in the article is for the Minnesota Fringe Festival and is not a profile of the theatre itself. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies for this relist. I was on the wrong log page --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Theatre company that performed all of... three shows. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eatabullet (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Keeper76, who apparently is back. Yay. Non-admin closure. --Amalthea^Talk 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christensen Farms

No notability asserted and no references. Clubmarx (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7, no assertion of notability is made. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 per above, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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">
-==Speedy deletion of [[:Lucy Otterwell]]==
+{| width = "100%"
-[[Image:Ambox warning_pn.svg|48px|left]] A tag has been placed on [[:Lucy Otterwell]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under [[WP:CSD#A7|section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion]], because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the [[WP:CSD#Articles|criteria for speedy deletion]], articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please [[Wikipedia:Notability|see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable]], as well as our subject-specific [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|notability guideline for biographies]].
+|-
+! width="50%" align="left"  | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October  12|October 12]]
-If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of [[:Lucy Otterwell|the page that has been nominated for deletion]]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on '''[[ Talk:Lucy Otterwell|the talk page]]''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles|one of these admins]] to request that a copy be emailed to you. <!-- Template:Db-bio-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> [[User:Newsaholic|Newsaholic]] ([[User talk:Newsaholic|talk]]) 13:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
+! width="50%" align="right" |  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October  14|October 14]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
+|}
-== Speedy deletion of [[Memory Stick]] ==
+</div>
+<div align = "center">'''[[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|Guide to deletion]]'''</div>
-Hi.  You just requested the deletion of [[Memory Stick]] as an attack page, but I have declined the request as it does not appear to be an attack page.  If there is a problem with it that I have missed, please let me know.  [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 13:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC).
+{{Cent}}
+<small>{{purge|Purge server cache}}</small>
-==Speedy deletion of [[:Charles Smith (Freak)]]==
+__TOC__
-[[Image:Ambox warning_pn.svg|48px|left]] Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]]. [[Wikipedia:Attack_page|Attack pages]] and images '''are not tolerated''' by Wikipedia and are [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedily deleted]]. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] policy will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
+<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seed Herbarium Image Project}}
-If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of [[:Charles Smith (Freak)|the page that has been nominated for deletion]]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on '''[[ Talk:Charles Smith (Freak)|the talk page]]''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  <!-- Template:Db-attack-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> [[User:Newsaholic|Newsaholic]] ([[User talk:Newsaholic|talk]]) 13:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photo pillow}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Qassam rocket attacks, 2006}}
-== October 2008 ==
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of named Solar System objects}}
-[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not remove [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions|speedy deletion]] notices from pages you have created yourself{{#if:Charles Smith (Freak)|, as you did with [[:Charles Smith (Freak)]]}}. Please use the {{[[Template:hangon|hangon]]}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-speedy2 --> [[User:Newsaholic|Newsaholic]] ([[User talk:Newsaholic|talk]]) 13:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IHP National Airpistol}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resurrection (Gary Numan album)}}
-[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia{{#if:Charles Smith (Freak)| , such as [[:Charles Smith (Freak)]]}}, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-create3 --> ''Also [[Lucy Otterwell]]'' [[User:Newsaholic|Newsaholic]] ([[User talk:Newsaholic|talk]]) 13:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SM Lifestyle Center}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requisition}}
-[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is the '''last warning''' you will receive for your disruptive edits{{#if:CD-R|, such as the one you made to [[:CD-R]]}}. If you [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalize]] Wikipedia again, you '''will''' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism4 --> [[User:Jac16888|Jac16888]] ([[User talk:Jac16888|talk]]) 13:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Clarke (educationalist)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Boyd}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alok Chaturvedi}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical statistics}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gentlemen's Chess}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parramore Sports}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality (Rihanna song)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Wilson}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Extinction Awareness System}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luciana Misi}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Drew}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billboard Hot 100 50th Anniversary}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quick and the Undead}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curse of the Name Change (2005).}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nurse stereotypes}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citi Badminton Team}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-OCVM}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1991–1992 United States network television schedule (late night)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Stars of Wrestling}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronin Pictures}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Chef Junior}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CF Metadata Conventions}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanford Holst}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boiling bigots}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina Top 40}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damned Good Show}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Blount}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and Confucianism}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belnan}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croman Heliport}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logam Mulia}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Rock Hollow}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Incredible Adventures of Captain Taylor}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female protagonists in Disney animated films (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos F. Rivas}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Days Of Samsara}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Alisharan}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go Dda Gareth}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music in the 1990s}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FastAnt}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Sanchez (music)}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by POP TV}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rewind: The Best in Old Skool Garage}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tal Zwecker}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles G. Hulse}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghetto Mafia}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MapNTL.com}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smithson (webcomic)}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roll On (Kid Rock song) (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark W. Smith}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poptimal}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doubt (Criminal Minds)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in medical imaging}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rise Electric}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conflict neutral (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saraswathi Sabatham}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destination Sex City}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Address}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Tietlebaum}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyderabad Central}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For the Fallen Dreams}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-Valentine}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian allen ksfy}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lacey Mosley}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pringles products}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmalina (4th nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bratz products}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thayillum family}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassim Ait-Kaci}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballyhoo! (band)}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldominion}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Vie Theatre}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christensen Farms}}