Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 7: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effervescence mm'8}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Bradley}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Bradley}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Friends for Never}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Friends for Never}}

Revision as of 23:40, 7 September 2008

< September 6 September 8 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Effervescence mm'8

AfDs for this article:
Effervescence mm'8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable event at Indian Institute of Information Technology. Not enough reliable, verifiable sourcing to establish notability. Reads like an advertisement rather than asserting notability. DeProdded by creator. Dlohcierekim 13:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. For all practical purposes no meaningful content. Debate 木 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The effervescence mm'8 page has just been made and is under development. PLease give some time for it to meet wikipedia standards.... Thanks Param Aggarwal (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable - none of sources in the article, or the Google hits I see, are independent sources. Jll (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's a couple of articles from 2006 in Google news, but no coverage about subsequent festivals that I can see. -- Whpq (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - check out this category Category:Culfests. However, I am not sure how important this particular Culfest is. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the notability needs to be established through reliable sources. Have you found any? -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, google search for "Effervescence IIIT Allahabad" generates 575 results. Some of these may be notable. I am not sure whether really reliable (and unrelated to the educational institution) sources can be found for this. I leave that to editors of this article for establishing notability. BTW, the institute is 9 years old. Surely the article, if it stays, should not include 8 at the end, which seems to be name of the 2008 version of the fest. I guess other articles of this category may have similar issues regarding reliable 3rd party sourcing. --GDibyendu (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Counting google hits doesn't establish notability. Leaving it to other editors to sort out notability seems to run counter to your "keep" opinion as there doesn't seem to be anything to support it. I've looked for sources and found none. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Bradley

Brent Bradley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable podcaster and drummer for cover band. While there is a single WP:RS for the article (from the St. Petersburg Times) it isn't what I could classify as "non-trivial" coverage, but rather a "get to know your neighbor" paragraph length article. Creating editor also claims that notability has been given to the subject given the stature of the bands featured on the podcast, but notability can't be gained purely by association. Fails WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:40, 7 September 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) 01:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks sufficient non-trivial coverage to establish notability. one local puff piece is not enough. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of significant independent coverage says it all. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If people wish to merge, they can discuss the matter further at the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best Friends for Never

Best Friends for Never (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable book that fails all aspects of WP:BK. Tag for notability issues since June until it was removed by the same person who removed the PROD with the reason of "this is one of the most popular book series for young people in the united states. deletion is wrong." The series may be notable, but that does not automatically make every in said series notable. None of these books have been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." They have not won any notable literary awards. They have not "been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country." They are not used in any schools nor are the subject of instructional material. Nor is the author historically significant by any stretch of the imagination.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. All are unnotable books in a barely notable teenage mass market, mass produced book series. All have been tagged for notability issues since June or July until they notability tag was inappropriately removed when they were deprodded. All of these books fail all aspects of WP:BK.:

Bratfest at Tiffany's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Revenge of the Wannabes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Invasion of the Boy Snatchers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Pretty Committee Strikes Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dial L for Loser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's Not Easy Being Mean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sealed with a Diss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep all, or merge to The Clique series at worst. They seem to be semi-notable, given sources like this and this. The latter at least suggests notability for the series as a whole, so I would think that a merger would be acceptable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than weak notability, they're one of the most popular series for children in the United States, having sat on numerous bestseller lists. The latest installment shipped 350k copies in the US alone. I do not believe any effort was made by the nominator to actually find out the popularity of this series. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no one has questioned the SERIES popularity, that is why it has its own article. That does not make every book in the series notable. Notability is not inherited. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As each book is shipping hundreds of thousands of copies on first printing alone... Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And? So does every other mass market book. Again, read WP:BK. Quantity shipped is not relevant at all to notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. The massive amounts of publicity each book has gotten is what makes it meet WP:BK. Spend 2 minutes with Google sometime. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, prove each and every books notability per WP:BK, and that does not include links to fansites, publicist statements, etc. but significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources for every last book in the list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all those, only a handful are NOT specialist listings. Teen sites do not count, as per WP:BK. Being a NY Times bestseller is also not an indication of notability per WP:BK. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, no, being a bestseller is not an indication of notability, but people do tend to like to know if something is a bestseller, and even WP:N admits that notability and popularity "may positively correlate". It is part of a picture of the overall impact of a book (and can certainly be used to help build an article).
Secondly, I'm confused by your term "specialist listings". (Mainly because I'm struggling to work out which piece of policy or guideline you're trying to draw on, I think.) Could you possibly elaborate? Assuming that you're referring to the fact that not all of these sources are mainstream magazines/newspapers... They don't all have to be. WP:BK only says "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." And the phrase "general audience" currently has a [clarify] next to it! (The discussion on the talk page even seems to be moving towards removing the phrase altogether, so...)
Also, if you're asserting that sites aimed at teens don't count - well, I see nothing in WP:RS that says sources must be designed for adults, just that they must be reliable. If you're asserting that the two particular sites I've referenced with "Teen" in their name don't count, I would have to say that I disagree. They are not the blogs of one individual; they have teams of people working on them - they have editorial control.
In any case, these sources are just the ones that I found first, after a short search for each book. I'm sure there are others out there. In fact I may well go and find them... -- KittyRainbow (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General audience meaning not the specific audience the books are targetted at, AKA teens. I didn't say they are not RS, but they do not count towards notability. Interesting on the clarify, it seems to be relatively new. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's blatantly wrong. If that were the case, every last episode of every last television would also have articles because they are "the sum of the parts" but they are not. They MUST meet notability on their own. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong analogy. I'm not claiming that each chapter needs a Wikipedia article. Lets take The Colbert Report as an example. The anchor, Stephen Colbert has his own article, then there is the articles List of The Colbert Report episodes broken down by years, Recurring segments on The Colbert Report, and special features such as Better Know a District, Truthiness, and Wikiality. Of course, don't forget the template {{The Colbert Report}}. Dems on the move (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, my analogy is correct. Your's isn't very good, comparing a mass produced teenage fiction series to a non-fiction, multi-award winning television series, and both of which fall under very different notability guidelines. WP:BK exists to ensure we do not have articles on every little mass market book in the world. These books have a "list" in the form of The Clique (series), so these are all individual "episodes." And no offense, but having a template doesn't mean jack. They are a dime a dozen and take only seconds to make. Lots of unnotable stuff have been shoved in templates before, then eventually deleted or merged, followed by their templates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into The Clique series. Short plot summaries can be placed on the main series page, along with a critical reception section for the series as a whole (much more useful than the alternative, having very short sections on each book). There isn't enough to justify an article for each book separately; I agree with Collectonian wholeheartedly. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that each article has a pretty lengthy plot description. Dems on the move (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-notable author seicer | talk | contribs 13:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Walks-As-Bear

David Walks-As-Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author. The books listed are self-published, no references to reviews are given, only a few reviews on Amazon can be found. Although the article claims that some of the books were the basis for an upcoming ABC series, it is evident when one reads the author's synopses and the description of the series that these are unrelated. Delete. Crusio (talk) 22:19, 7 September 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) 01:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability as an author. Nothing listed at either Library Of Congress or British Library . Eddie.willers (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "self published" is pretty much a keyword for "non-notable". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Val chua. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 03:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cantor Wultz

Daniel Cantor Wultz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article on the victim of a terrorist bombing that is not a real biography, but rather both memorial and soapbox. To quote the original PROD tag, 'Although tragic, subject seems noted only because of one event and the article therefore misses the criteria of WP:BIO.' CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was A7 by RHaworth, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Money 2

I Love Money 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax / proposed you tube show being promoted by its creator. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is ridiculous. Isn't there a speedy-delete category that's appropriate for this? =Axlq 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:ONEEVENT. If anyone wants the content for merging to chelation therapy or elsewhere, feel free to drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Tariq Nadama

Abubakar Tariq Nadama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

BLP of a deceased child. There is no significant information about the child other than his unfortunate death. Very dubious notability, it was a news report at the time, and no evidence of ongoing significance. Fails WP:BLP1E and also has issues of WP:COATRACK as really just an excuse to comment on some treatment he received. Currently also not neutral or properly referenced. Troikoalogo (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, although I might change my mind if the mild assertion of notability ("caused a stir within the autistic community") could be sourced. The only source referenced, however, doesn't back up that claim. =Axlq 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does BLP (living) really apply to dead people? Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think BLP applies, but WP:BIO1E does. There is a much better discussion of the WP:COATRACK issue in chelation therapy already. (And it's not even clear from the article or the linked source whether the chelation therapy caused the subject's death). Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cause célebre unfortunately. JFW | T@lk 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WARNING -- This AFD has no tag on the article: the nomination thus appears to be technically defective. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge -- This appears to be a case history relating to the appliation of chelation therapy to autism, not a biography. If the text is to be retained at all, it should be as a case history for what it illustrates. Like almost every other 5-year-old child the subject of this articel is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Archer

Lindsay Archer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

CV of a commercial artist, with no assertions of notability other than a list of commercial products she's done the artwork for, nor any reliable sources indicating same. CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Artist has contributed to published works I would consider notable. The claims are verifiable, but not having sources for verifiable claims isn't a reason to delete the article. This is a stub article that needs improving, that's all. =Axlq 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there aren't any sources for claims, then a priori they're not verifiable, aren't they? But more to the point, as fame is not contagious, 'contributing to' is a phrase with very little weight. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw VII

Saw VII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; crystal-ball speculation about a possibly-upcoming movie in the Saw franchise. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 21:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with fire. Saw V isn't out for another month or two, and there isn't much information on a possible sixth movie yet. A seventh movie is completely hypothetical at this point. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL... plain and simple.--Pmedema (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As TOTAL speculation per WP:Crystal. Even the NYPost ref states refers to a possible Saw VI or VII as speculative. Bring this article back in 3 or 4 years.*Delete As TOTAL speculation per WP:Crystal. Even the cited NYPost article shows a "possible" Saw VI or VII as complete speculatiion. Bring this article back in 3 or 4 years. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must keep this article. the saw movies are very important with millions of fans around the globe if i tell my friends that they want to delete this article on wikipedia they will only laugh, because that is so ridicolus. has anyone even seen a saw movies?? if yes you would know that they are beep awesome and you would not say delete delete delete. Of course I will expand the article and write about all the important details because wikipedia must have this information the millions of fans who are looking forward to see saw VII!!!! Best, Youpi Youpi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youpi-youpi (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It'll probably happen (Saw sells), but it's far too early to say anything about how or what will happen. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystalballery. JuJube (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:IAR if appropriate; otherwise just delete as non-notable, non-verifiable, crystalball-gazing... despite my personal views on Saw, Saw II, and Saw III this article just plain doesn't belong. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL Jll (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball delete: pure speculation. Cliff smith talk 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loretta Andrada

Loretta Andrada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. I have not been able to locate any evidence that she meets WP:ENTERTAINER (there would be at least a few sources if she has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" or "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment") or the primary criteria at WP:N in that there are not enough reliable sources to write a fair and balanced article on her. Obviously I do believe at the moment that it should be deleted, but I am open to having my mind changed on this article, particularly as there is a potential for a language/resource barrier (I only have access to the Internet and American library systems). As it stands, however, it does not appear to meet the WP:N standard (non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third party sources). Cheers, CP 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The relevant information in the article appears to substantiated by online sources. The idea that an article should be deleted because one user lacks access to the resources needed to more completely substantiate it is hardly sensible. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What relevant information? Yes, we can confirm that she was in a movie or two, but only in trivial mentions that don't address WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:N. Furthermore, the nomination is based on the fact that there are no sources to meet WP:N not that I lack the resources to find them (although, the onus for sourcing is always on the individual who adds the material anyways). I simply added a caveat that I would be willing to reconsider if other sources demonstrating notability became available. I'm not arguing that the current material is not verifiable, just that it doesn't establish notability. Cheers, CP 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence this person meets any notability standards whatsoever. And yes, that is a basic requirement, not a minor technicality. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This "appears to be substantiated by online sources?" Which sources would they be, please? As it stands, this violates WP:V.  RGTraynor  11:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please remember that Philippine online sources are not as efficient as its Western counterparts. However, the year indicated for Kamay ng Diyos is different from the article. This film was released in 1947, not 1934. Starczamora (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While with a close native Filipino friend who's a webaholic I might demure, the upshot is that efficient or not, without any sources at all, an article cannot be sustained.  RGTraynor  21:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond henchmen in Die Another Day

List of James Bond henchmen in Die Another Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Undue weight to a topic which could be covered (and should be, in an abbreviated form) in the Die Another Day cast list. Does not assert notability through sources covering james bond henchmen in the film. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this should probably constitute an AfD for all "List of James Bond henchmen in..." articles - there's a list for each film. Also, delete or merge with List of James Bond henchmen, if there's anything worth saving. – Toon(talk) 21:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These lists have been created as part of consensus to prevent the main articles from becoming too long. As far as I'm aware WP:FICT does not prohibit them. The nom is welcome to propose a policy to ban such articles, of course. Otherwise there's no point singling out only one film of 22 or 23. 23skidoo (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. (You didn't expect that, did you). It is generally considered that "List of..." articles are useful in that they prevent the creation of numerous NN articles about the individual characters, and per WP:SPINOFF. However, this doesn't preclude them actually being sourced, which this one isn't, leaving it vulnerable to charges of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. It has also been a magnet, like many such articles, for fair-use image overuse, but that's still not a reason to delete it.Black Kite 22:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article wholly consists of unsourced plot, film quotes, and trivia. If the specific in-universe detailing of these characters are particularly important to the plot of Die Another Day , this content should be part of the synopsis at that article; there is certainly no need for a whole sub-article to detail and exposit another article's plot. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and up-merge or redirect to Die Another Day, List of James Bond henchmen, or List of James Bond characters in Die Another Day). I can see where the (weak) keep !votes are coming from, and the James Bond franchise is certainly successful and popular enough to have some bits of real-world info for every character - but seriously - a separate sublist to summarize two hours of plot? (A TV show character list usually summarizes dozens of hours of plot). WP:BHTT is not a good keep rationale, and I want to see some improvements towards something like List of Pulp Fiction characters before supporting a separate list of sub-group characters. – sgeureka t•c 13:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The testmaster says keep. 5 Pillars yeah Testmasterflex (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is this any less notable than notable than say, List of characters in the Cloverfield universe? Cheers --Fatal!ty (T☠LK) 06:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -I fully agree that this article needs a great deal of work, primarily because it needs out of universe information and referencing. I have always been opening to mergin the characters by film. What I strongly disappove of however is the way in which this article has been obviously nominated for deletion as a way out of the dispute that has surrounded it for the last few days which had resulted in an ANI report. May I say that this nomination seems to have been done to prove a point and done so rather childishly in the circumstances. I seriously doubt this would have been nominated today but for the image and taggin issue that preceded it. I am open to discussion, however I haven't been able to sort things out because I'm suffering from a serious computer virus which is strictly limiting what messages I can get through. It took me half an hour to access this page. Referring to content as "shitty articles" from an adminstrator is not exactly setting an example to the community however bad he thinks it is. It is delibrately aggressive and mocking and shows a lack of respect for other editors. I only split the article. I didn't write the content only split it. Mostly IPs have written it so I agree it is pretty lack lustre rather than "shitty" as the nominator so descriptively commented. Personally in a traditional encyclopedic sense I think all lists of fictional chcarcters are WP:FANCRUFT. However as we all know wikipedia is far fomr a conventional encyclopedia and there are ways in which such articles can be informative to those interested in them. Ideally it would all be summarised in the main article but wikipedia isn't a paper source and there are limits to how much we can cover on one page which is the only reason why such lists exist. The Bald One White cat 15:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The dispute on the article between you and I had nothing to do with this AfD. I have intentionally not voted on this AfD. I don't appreciate being called "childish" when I had nothing at all to do with this AfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who said I was referring to you with this AFD? I can clearly see it wasn't you who nominated it, but the decision to nominate the article for deletion at a time of a dispute isn;t exactly the most tactful thing to do is it, whoever it was that nominated it? I;d rather we could have discussed the image deletions rationally on the talk page before you went off to ANI premataturely and made me look like I was abusing my tools which 99% are a massive help to wikipedia and maintaining thousands of articles. I certainly wasn't going to waste time with edit warring. The Bald One White cat 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You could certainly help discussion by not referring to me (or anyone else for that matter) as "childish" and my edits as "vandalism". I intend on removing the images from all henchmen articles in Category:Lists of James Bond henchmen, so if you want to keep them (despite them violating policy) I suggest you engage in non-insulting discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you arguing that because there's been a lot of activity on this page recently regarding a separate point of contention invalidates the nominator's concerns as detailed? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I've added references to the article and will be adding more when I get access to them. Rick Yune's character led to real world controversy due to objections in both N and S Korea to portrayals in the film. Indeed, there was enough of a real-world impact that one could arguably spin off the article on Zao. For example, there was a Chicago Tribune article on the subject (behind a paywall, am attempting to get access to currently) and there were apparently a variety of articles in the South Korean press on this topic (although I can't read Korean so I can't determine how relevant they are for our purposes). JoshuaZ (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've (easily) included the cited production information about the Zao character into the parent article's cast listing. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 04:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond allies in Die Another Day

AfDs for this article:
List of James Bond allies in Die Another Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Undue weight to a topic which could be covered (and should be, in an abbreviated form) in the Die Another Day cast list. Does not assert notability through sources covering james bond allies in the film. Looking through the previous AfD, I see no way the concerns about sourcing were met; the only information worth anything could be used in the film article, but does not justify this list's existence. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nothing has changed to suggest any reason to overturn the AFD of only a few months ago. There is no time limit on Wikipedia except in cases of WP:BLP violation. 23skidoo (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article can be deleted at any time for failing to assert notability; considering the admin closed it assuming that the source would appear, it's a relevant question; I myself have found nothing to support its notability on a search of my own; can you find any? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I said in the last (very recent) AfD, this is a legitimate entry in a series of articles on the allies, villains and henchmen of the James Bond films. Merging would unnecessarily bloat the main film article, and articles like this serve to limit the tendency to create articles for each character. I did a Google Books search and there is enough significant coverage in major published work to adequately source this article. I will work on it shortly. --Canley (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know this would bloat the main article, that's why I'm saying frag it, not merge. Any good movie article should be able to adequately describe the plot and characters in its own article. These sublists for a two-hour movie violate WP:PLOT, WP:UNDUE, and WP:WAF. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listing a bunch of guidelines, policies and essays is all very well, but it's a real stretch to say this list "violates" any of the above. WP:PLOT says that sourced real-world context and impact is appropriate, this list contains that. WP:UNDUE is an NPOV guideline, and not at all relevant. WP:WAF is a manual of style, and if the article can be improved to follow the MOS more closely, then it can be without the need to "frag" it. --Canley (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the information should be listed in the cast section of the movie article; in fact, most of it already is, and there is still plenty of room for the rest of the non-plot details. What would be needed to justify this page is reception of each individual character or development information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Unconventional) up-merge to List of James Bond characters in Die Another Day with the other character lists of this film. This list already passes my don't-delete criteria (although barely), but the other lists don't, so upmerging saves all of them to some extent. (The images still need to go.) – sgeureka t•c 13:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete cruft. Nothing more to say. Bulldog123 (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — excessive undue weight given to this specific group of characters in the film. Merge any verifiable, salvageable information to the film article or to the character list. sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The purpose of the lists was to merge all the articles in such a way that would prevent the seperated articles from being deleted. This article is part of a series. To take this one away from the series as shown on the template {{James Bond characters}} would beg the question by new users or old users "Wheres the article on ones with Die Another Day". Then they would just probably create it again. I'm not saying delete them all, but these articles CAN be sourced but they just don't have the dedicated users who would like to do source it. The article was viewed 3183 times in August ([1]). Not alot but theres still enough interest in the article, so I cannot say delete it for the sake of non-nobility and one users demands to purge Wikipedia of articles for the sake of it.  The Windler talk  20:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That 'keep' doesn't explain how the lists are in keeping with WP:PLOT, WAF, WP:NOT. Just because a page is visited doesn't mean it should exist. Fails GNG at present; and we can salt the article if deleted (thus making it impossible for the article to be recreated), that's not the issue. Find us the sources and then you have a valid keep. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal Jurisprudence

The Journal Jurisprudence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a new magazine (launching this month), with no assertion of notability. There seems to be little in the way of ghits, with 53 normal and zero news hits. Subject appears to fail WP:N, with a distinct lack of coverage in reliable sources and no indication of other notability. – Toon(talk) 21:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom – Toon(talk) 21:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very unlikely to be notable as soon as its first issue is even published. Suspect WP:COI. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This appears to be a new academic journal, written by academics, not a mere magazine to be thrown away when read. There have been a series of discussions of existing academic journals (usually for those covering narrow specialisations). As far as I recall they have normally been kept. This is a new journal, so that coverage elsewhere cannot be expected yet. The website implies that it is available to download, so that this is not a question of future events. This is a harmless little article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - that could be used for anything - a "harmless little piece" of advertising doesn't make it notable enough to warrant inclusion - there are inclusion guidelines for a reason, otherwise this would just be a big combination of myspace and the Yellow Pages. This isn't an attack upon academic journals per se, any notable journal is welcome here, but the only reason this one is here is to give it some promotion and hike up its ranking on a Google search. There has most certainly not been significant coverage - or any other notability within its own field, and AfDs don't operate on precedents - every nomination is assessed on an individual basis, so any other (obviously more notable) journals being kept is of little relevance. This clearly fails our notability guidelines. – Toon(talk) 17:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marlie Casseus

Marlie Casseus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sick teenager, who got quite a bit of human interest news coverage of her illness. Not ultimately of lasting significance or encyclopaedic value. WP:NOT yesterday's news. Troikoalogo (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I wrote most of the prose of this article. Simon Pulsifer is a human-interest story article, which tells us something about whether the community deletes articles on those grounds. Instead, notability is the standard, as measured by multiple stories by news organizations. Casseus isn't a media one-off, but has gotten press coverage during various time periods, in December '05, early October and late November '06 (all in this article) and again in December '06. I almost nommed this for deletion myself on BLP grounds, but she's even been the subject of a Discovery Health program apparently shown in late 2007. Looking at the video in the second external link, it's apparent she or her family is cooperating with the press instead of shying away from them. Finally, she's notable as the most famous case of polyostotic fibrous dysplasia. It may not be Christopher Reeve and paralysis, but it's still significant. In the event I ever get a deletion request from her family or someone associated with them, I'll delete this article myself on BLP grounds.--chaser - t 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems pretty notable to me... there aren't that many cases of Polyostotic fibrous dysplasia that are publisized like this that I know of... Absolutely passes WP:V. Not just a "sick girl"... more of a "Case Study" I think. --Pmedema (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and referenced. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree in general that one-off news stories and their subjects aren't typically worthy of inclusion, but I think that this subject is an exception, as noted above. There are plenty of sources that document this, so I think notability is clearly established. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maximally merge with the PFD article. Shall we have articles on every single pair of conjoined twins that gets separated too? JFW | T@lk 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Lamenessing Engine

AfDs for this article:
Anti-Lamenessing Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim to notability, and no notability is apparent. No media coverage and only 980 ghits. A previous discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Lamenessing Engine, resulted in no consensus, but the arguments made there ("it's used in Linux distributions") are unpersuasive.  Sandstein  04:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn samj (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "other things exist" ;) --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India Tower

India Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about an vaporware building that never went beyond concept stage, and the only sources for it are internet blogs. It should not deserve a Wikipedia entry at all. By78 (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 20:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per Phil Bridger's comments below. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are two notable articles; Ethiopian Heritage Museum and Swaminarayan Museum, both of which are underconstruction. In both of these situations, a tag noting, "This article or section contains information about expected future buildings or structures." has been placed on each article. For this article under discussion, I believe such a tag is an appropriate response to a building under construction that has recieved media attention. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This tag has been added to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Some inaccuracies: I live near Marine Lines. so I can contribute more on this. The location does not come under Marine Lines, rather Charni Road. Google Map location of the construction. The area was previously owned by Ruby Automobiles, and as of date the construction has yet to complete a single storey. Notability needs to be ascertained to be kept. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was about to vote keep on account of 7,020 Google hits [3]; but a closer examination reveals that none of the links were from news site, and after the first 20 records links to another "India Tower". A search on Google news gives an absolute zero (actually gives 2 hits both of which are incorrect) [4]. Never came across it in the papers. It is impossible that such a mega project will be launched without any media attention , whether in news articles or advertisements or without a spectacular launch. I may be going too far, but it could be a hoax. Unless there is subtantial news coverage I would suggest we delete it.--Deepak D'Souza 09:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Deepak D'Souza. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper ǀ 76 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Metabolic Design Laboratories

Earth Metabolic Design Laboratories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy deletion, but I'm not convinced this group passes notability. Three Google scholar hits don't seem to quite do it. Dlohcierekim 02:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This organization played a key role in the DEA scheduling hearings for MDMA. They were the actual organization that requested the hearings. The organization conducted the first real human study of MDMA and the first chronic animal toxicity study. The notability of the founders and their subsequent activity is also considerable. For example: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ec5hNgYWHtkC&pg=RA1-PA38&lpg=RA1-PA38&dq=deborah+harlow+mdma&source=web&ots=BrJ02b1taf&sig=mIoEdASvmjOoBgJuBlHfjBXlOYA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

The organization has fewer references than it should because most of its activity is incorrectly atributed to MAPS, which didn't exist until years later.--TheRealRealFester (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Rick Doblin. This article is very short, as is that one. The two articles are interrelated enough that combining would allow a way for the article to naturally grow more than it would as two separate ones. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Schuym1 (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winfrasoft

Winfrasoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy was contested, but the creator still hasn't given a reason for why it shouldn't be deleted. Reads like an advertisement. Schuym1 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Schuym1 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mixtapes do not assert notability. No primary reliable sources. seicer | talk | contribs 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's Case Files Mixtape

AfDs for this article:
Adam's Case Files Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtape. Mixtapes are generally considered not notable in the first place, and there's nothing about this one that makes it any different. No independent references at all. Fails WP:MUSIC. PROD contested by original author. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: I am adding this article to the discussion:
Adam's Case Files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Bmedick, the original author of the first article, later created the article without "mixtape" in the title, and redirected the first article to this one. In doing so, he wiped out the AfD notice on the old article and did not post it again on the new one. As the new article is nearly identical to the old one, this appears to be an effort by the original author to evade the AfD process. I have warned him accordingly, and added the new article to the discussion, and also reverted the old article to maintain the proper revision history. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of independent references from authoritative sources is main reason. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the further description of this matter. Information regarding this album was found at an independent website, not the artists MySpace page, personal web site or the record label web page. This is not a collection of songs from various artists randomly created by an unreliable source. This album is produced, performed and copyrighted by 88-Keys and Decon Records. The album is available for digital download and was released to promote the major debut of 88-Keys' album The Death of Adam which will be released on October, 28, 2008, executively produced by Kanye West, which makes it a very legitimate album. Information regarding this mixtape was found at a reputable website which I did reference, and has no ties to the artist in any way. This article was made to promote the effort that 88-keys has put into his work, wherther it be this mixtape, his new album or any previous works produced and performed by him. As it relates to 88-Keys, I created this article to give people an idea about this influencial hip-hop artist and pioneer. If I cannot write an article about his work, with legitimate sources, without it being deleted then what is the point. I believe that if this article is about him, and many other websites are promoting this album, which I have referneced, making it important to the artists history, there should be no conflict of interets. I do not know what else I should do, please advise. If I have to I'll contact the artist and his label for more advice.75.4.137.196 (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting the label would be futile, as it would have no positive effects on this discussion, and would likely have negative effects instead. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I have added more sources and external links in regards to this album that are not related to the artist, the record label, or any promotional website. This album, although labeled as mixtape by me, is actually a precursor to the artists debut album being released in october. Please advise75.4.137.196 (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-notable researcher; unreferenced. seicer | talk | contribs 20:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Praveen Kumar

Gideon Praveen Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a resume of what this young researcher has written and accomplished. Virtually any graduate student or research assistant could write a similar biography about him or herself. I see no evidence of academic notability. Note that the author, Biomedicalcitizen (talk · contribs), has no edits outside this article. I will notify him shortly. Buki ben Yogli (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil park

Fossil park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a short dictionary definition and unlikely to be expanded. More significantly, I'm not sure the term is in common usage or has an established meaning. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Boris Flats

The Boris Flats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rejected the speedy deletion on this article. Listing for AfD instead Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:25, 7 September 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, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bremerton Marina

AfDs for this article:
Bremerton Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable marina with info coming from the governing body. Information provided is about its services and nothing that establishes notability. As with the other deleted or deletion in process marinas, there's no evidence this is a notable marina and simple existence is not enough. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bremerton Marina was for an article that was substantially different, although the subject is the same marina. TravellingCari 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I had previously attempted to have the article speedy deleted under G11 (blatant advertising). Basement12 (T.C) 17:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The citations added by Eastmain and additional searching show non-trivial RS interest. This is one of 3 or 4 salvageable marinas from the creator's copy-and-paste spree. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete contains no content worth salvaging. Mayalld (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local coverage does not make this article notable, despite Eastmain's attempts. Where is the significant notability that makes this place stand out? What happened to the company CEO/editor in charge of this marathon edit spree? Flowanda | Talk 07:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. There is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As far as I know that satisfies WP:N and WP:V. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC) User:NonvocalScream non-admin closed this as a no consensus, but I felt a relist was better.[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article is not written as an advertisment and seems to be informative about this verifiable marina in Bremerton, Washington. I'm on the fence about it's notability but when truely on the fence, err on the side of keep.--Pmedema (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Marinas aren't just businesses, they're transportation facilities. They exist in the real world and are referenced in various reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment where are these sources? The article is "sourced" entirely from the gov't website. Real world existence !=notability. This article has already been deleted once, as have the vast majority of the other creations from this author. I see nothing demonstrating notability. TravellingCari 16:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keyword tracking

Keyword tracking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The creator contested the speedy delete. A non-notable site, reads like an advertisement, and original research. Schuym1 (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Reads like blatant advertising. It is full of personal reflection--NAHID 18:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 04:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nepal Hong Kong

Miss Nepal Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is totally unverified with no reliable source, the external links redirects to non-English pages. The notability has not been asserted within the article. The winners of this competition don't seem to have encyclopedic value . Apart from this, poorly written. Hitro 18:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Maybe merge the info into Miss Nepal? -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 19:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dengero (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper ǀ 76 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination lawsuits and incidents in Japan

AfDs for this article:
Discrimination lawsuits and incidents in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be a personal, one-sided attack on a group or society. Two previous attempts to add similar articles with the same information had Afd discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VAIBS which resulted in a deletion; and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination in Japan which resulted in a merge with the more balanced Racial issues in Japan article. As written, the article is WP:SOAP, edited entirely by a single editor, User talk:Vaibs2, whose username indicates a definite problem with WP:COI. (VAIBS is a lawsuit advocacy group.) — CactusWriter | needles 17:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While the article is certainly one-sided, that is a cleanup issue. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Changed, see below...[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced cleanup will really help here, since this article is largely a duplicate of Racial issues in Japan, at least in terms of the encyclopedic topics it could cover. As constituted now, and as the pagename seems to suggest, this article is a laundry list of incidents that allign with a certain POV. I would hold this violated WP:NPOV, but the broader problem is this is just a poor way of organizing articles to provide encyclopedic coverage a topic, when you're creating articles to list only examples on one side of the issue. --Rividian (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:SOAPBOX. It is also borderline G10 due to the inflammatory nature of the article. MuZemike (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No more onesided in principle than Israel and the apartheid analogy was, and should be treated similarly. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Delete. WP:OTHERCRAP isn't a reason to keep. There's already an article, racial issues in Japan, that could be expanded and changed to a different title if necessary. This article is not only a soapbox, but could be considered a POV fork. =Axlq 22:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Racial issues in Japan, as the content is similar enough to make this a good outcome. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The purpose of this article seems to spread VAIB's claim over SURUGA BANK. The list of lawsuits are added just for to keep the article, probably because VAIBS was deleted. I agree to CactusWriter.--Mochi (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Copiously sourced article about an encyclopedic topic. Unlike some of the "allegations of apartheid" articles where analogies are made to make a point, this is about cases filed in Japan's court system, some of which are successful, some not. The acknowledgement of one's right to file a discrimination lawsuit is the very antithesis of apartheid. I don't agree at all that this is a "soapbox". In fact, what the article underscores is that Japan is a democratic nation with laws against discrimination against minorities, and that there are people who have purposely availed themselves of their right to litigate under those laws. If some of the language seems too POV, that's why this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit Mandsford (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. There's really no need for this article as many of the subsections were covered already in other articles. Yes, this article is poorly written, some of the sources are to deadlinks, the citations are a mess and poorly organized, but those aren't reasons for deletion. The fact that it's a POV fork is a concern. In addition, I agree with others that some of the reliably sourced information can be added to Racial issues in Japan if need be. J Readings (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sourcing is fine, but WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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... twice... still WP:SNOWing as far as I can tell. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semih Aydilek

Semih Aydilek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE by playing in a pro-league, U19 appearances do not confer notability. Kevin McE (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Birmingham is in the Premier League, a fully professional league, but this player has never actually taken the field for Birmingham. If he did so then he would deserve an article. Being listed on the roster is not sufficient. He should actually have played. Injuries may have prevented him from playing earlier. (The same issue has come up before, for other players). EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Ed's understanding of the soccer notability guidelines. Disruptive behavior by anon who removed prod doesn't help me, either. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE and a couple of mentions in local papers does not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I agree with the nom that the subject fails to meet WP:Athlete, and until he walks onto the field in a professional game he won't meet it. However, I'm going with weak because he is listed, is sitting on the bench, and there are thus good chances that he'll walk onto the field in the near future. Given this, it may make sense to userfy, and recreate if he gets a game. (It is worth noting that this makes him the only player listed on Birmingham City F.C. to be redlinked, but that seems fair enough). - Bilby (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 12:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of substantial indepdent biographical coverage. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. I PRODED this and anon removed the tag so here we are! Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. First team game, meaningful cup game, or Olympics. Until then, non notable. GauchoDude (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is customary, "votes" from unregistered and newly-registered users have been discounted. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brett King

AfDs for this article:
Brett King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As mentioned in the talk page. This page reads like an autobiography/advert. It was created and maintained by User:Brett k, thus autobiographical. This page has been tagged once before and User:Secret, who is an administrator, saw fit make the page a redirect to the company page. User:Brett k undid this move. A quick google search finds many other Brett King's listed but I can't find this guy. If this guy is deemed not notable, I suppose the image should be deleted as well. RobDe68 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a mess, and undoubtedly an autobio, but that huge list of media exposure ELs seems to indicate come notability. (Some are passing references, but some have detail.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2: I have worked with Brett King and his understanding of the customer experience in a banking environment really is unique and as an author of an upcoming book BANK 2.0 see this profile being no different to other authors such as Jakob Nielsen or Jesse James Garret who are known for their user experience work in the web development community. BenMay75 10:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — BenMay75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep 3: Looks OK and could use some updating by a WIKI Master to make the presentation even better. Other than that, King is an incredibly notable figure. Globalprofessor —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentDelete. So far as I can tell, this guy fails WP:PROF, so his notability would have to come from elsewhere. The media quotes academics; being consulted by the media for news stories does not make one more notable than your average professor. None of the stories on the page are about King. Of the two people that BenMay75 mentions, I can only find a Wikipedia article on the first; in any case, the fact that other stuff exists doesn't establish notability. RJC Talk Contribs 20:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Update: Changed vote to delete, given that no one has pointed to independent news coverage that establishes notablity, as opposed to stories which utilize him as a source. RJC Talk Contribs 00:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response from Brett King Please allow me to defend this entry. I am a judge on two distinguished international awards panels, published commercially and academically in more than 40 countries and listed as faculty on 4 Universities currently. I'm happy to supply journal and academic papers to anyone who is interested. However, the key issue here is whether this entry is deemed one of a notable or noteworthy person for WP:BIO. I suggest you try a search on Google for "Brett King" Wealth Management, "Brett King" Dubai, "Brett King" Hong Kong or similar where 90% of the return results on the first few pages support the entry. Please also feel free to check with William Byrnes, Assoc Dean Thomas Jefferson School of Law (San Diego), Dr. K. K. Lam at City University, or Dr. Richard Petty, Assoc Dean, Macquarie Graduate School of Management for my academic credentials if you have any concerns on the WP:PROF. Brett King is a fairly common name. I do not believe I should be penalized for holding a name that other notable people also hold.
  • delete the external links contain a substantial degree of puffery, three of the links are broken, two of them don't include a mention of the biography subject by name. With very few (one?) exception, the rest of the external links mention the subject by name just once, usually just to source a quip. IMHO, none of these amount to the extensive coverage of Brett King as a subject in reliable secondary sources. For example the first three all link to strikingly similar news reports (minimally reprocessed press release?) in which the identical, or virtually identical, paragraph contains Brett Kings name (re)printed in www.arabianbusiness.com, www.khaleejtimes.com, and www.pr-usa.net. Googling "Brett King" primarily returns hits for the actor and Saturday Night Live producer, or psychologist. Google scholar primariily turns up Brett A. King. Vanity and COI puffery move me from "weak delete" to "delete". If WP:RS sources are produced to demonstrate that he passes either WP:BIO or WP:PROF, I'll change my opinion, but I've seen none on the searching I've done. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response from Brett King Google Scholar entries under Brett A. King are my own. My middle name is Andrew. I do not use it commercially, only in my academic references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett k (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brett A. King, as in author of "Ultra-fast excited state dynamics in green fluorescent protein: multiple states and proton transfer" PNAS, cited 222 times, and "Crystal Structure and Photodynamic Behavior of the Blue Emission Variant Y66H/Y145F of Green Fluorescent Protein" cited 68 times?, "Excited State Energy Transfer Pathways in Photosynthetic Reaction Centers. 1. Structural Symmetry Effects", "Electronic Structure of the Chromophore in Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP)" & "Spatially localized generation of nucleotide sequence-specific DNA damage" Because that seems to be the only Brett A. King my Google Scholar searches turn up. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Financial Lawyer. --Financiallawyer If Asia, Middle East, Africa, Australia, UK, and India knows who he is, that's good enough for me. 3/5ths or more of the English speaking world is a strong majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.125.151 (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Note that 24.252.125.151's "per Financial Lawyer" !vote was added before Financiallawyer's comment, obvious sockpuppetry Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:Financiallawyer|Financiallawyer]] If Asia, Middle East, Africa, Australia, UK, and India knows who he is, that's good enough for me. 3/5ths or more of the English speaking world is a strong majority.
  • Keep --Harryllufrio (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)- I disagree with considering to remove this article. Brett King is clearly an achiever and his achievements and associates should be included within this article. I have worked alongside Brett in the past and can vouch that he brings a lot of knowledge and value to the table when it comes to the user experience and online strategy for financial institutions and the travel industry. He is a genuine article. If anyone is seriously considering removing this article then they should also consider removing Bill Gates and Steve Jobs aswell. — Harryllufrio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are in no danger of being deleted because they meet the criterion of WP:N, people have written about them, a lot. That's the problem with this biography, no one independent of him seems to have written about him in a reliable source. If you google up Bill Gates and Steve Jobs you get information on them, if you google up Brett King... well, I suppose you might find this page... Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with JeremyMcKraken, While some of the language used could be edited to create a less autobio feel, the criteria for Bio's (as I read them) have been met. WP:BIO - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." WP:N - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" Of all the links I checked, they were all referencing Brett King as a presenter, panel expert, judge etc to what appear to be fairly globally recognized arenas and events. The articles and sources referring to him are secondary sources and reference him as a reliable source. Some removal of similar news articles could be considered if this is deemed an issue. Brett has noted the simplicity of finding large resources of information with slightly refined Google parameters, again, resulting in a long list of secondary sources and notability. As his brother I can verify both the order of events that occured and also rebutt the inference of WP:SSP as this would be against the integrity and principals of his character. Troyk26 (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC) troyk26[reply]

— troyk26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • delete only claim to notability seems to be helped found an organization. At best that gets this merged into the organization under history.--Buridan (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Obviously I think that this article should be deleted since I made the nomination. I just wanted to add that User:Brett K has admitted to being Brett King in this edit confirming the suspicion that this article is indeed autobiographical in nature. I believe that would make this a case of conflict of interest. I hope those that make the final decision also make note of the multiple SPAs that seemed to have created an account just to come to the defense of keeping the article. RobDe68 (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot, I also wanted to bring to light the similarities between the article and this Linked-In public profile, which appears to be an E-business card. RobDe68 (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced article with BLP concerns. We cannot have an unverifiable article which is a BLP walled garden, based on blogs and personal websites. If proper sources exist or become available in the future, interested editors are encouraged to create a neutral userfied article and request cross-namespace move via WP:DRV. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimosthenis Liakopoulos

Dimosthenis Liakopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

BLP about a controversial Greek TV personality, who runs a TV channel promoting what most people agree is utterly bizarre fringe nationalist pseudo-science. He certainly has some "notability", in the sense of being publicly notorious. But the trouble is: we have nothing to say about him. There's nothing, either positive or negative, that we can source with BLP-conforming reliability, because his programs are so laughably fringe nobody in the reliable literature bothers to deal with him. Note that the current version of the article is one that was stubbed back under BLP and then vandalised by a supporter; we once had much more on him (like this version, and previously even more critica ones, plus a whole walled garden on subjects related to him) – but all the sources in there were from non-reliable blogs and the like. The article has been around for years and has fluctuated between being a stub, a polemic against him, or an advertisement for him, but has never become anything remotely adequate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree that our chances of ever being able to write an adequate article about him are very limited, and BLP perma-stubs are a bad idea. Moreschi (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reform. We could use "protection" in this article to keep it from being pro- or anti- Liakopoulos.The thiing is he is famous and popular (or infamous) and that is the reason I think we shouldn't delete this.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the neutrality as such as the biggest problem here. I could easily write a neutral-sounding article. The problem is, I'd have nothing to work from. Sources, sources, sources! Have you got any? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Presumably there's lots of sources in the Greek language. We should not delete an article because we are unfamiliar with the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it was all Greek editors who edited it, and they were all familiar with him. But nobody found reliable sources for two or three years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at an older version and saw sources which agree with my own brief search. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:01, 7 September 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) 01:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What sources please? Reliable ones? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anyone wanting the content to merge can let me know. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templeton the Rat

Templeton the Rat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable fictional character. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF, with a little WP:OR on the side. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no real-world relevance. JuJube (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Charlotte's Web. Real-world relevance isn't necessary for an article about a fictional character, and there is ample precedent for such articles on Wikipedia already. I have fond memories of Templeton myself, but I can't justify an entire article about him. Information on Templeton really belongs in the Charlotte's Web article. =Axlq 22:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per User:Axlq's argument. AJD (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge makes no difference to me. subject isn't notable. we don't have an agreed upon community standard for handling fictional subtopics. I'm fine with merging, but a post deletion redirect would do the trick as well. Protonk (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. comments against more convincing that comments for keeping MBisanz talk 13:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid play

Mermaid play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and a dictionary definition. Article is a copy of the Wipipedia entry on the subject [5], which is user-edited and unreferenced. No evidence to support that this term is in wide use or that the activity is particularly significant. It is also in violation of the GFDL as the contribution history of the Wipipedia article is not included. WJBscribe (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Informed Consent (website) is a notable web site. The article there is stated to be copied from Wipipedia. However, Informed Consent is not a Wipipedia mirror. Before the article was added, it would have had an expert peer review by the editors of Informed Consent. That site does indeed acknowledge Wipipedia. If it is important to link to the Wipipedia history directly, this is easily done.--Whipmaster (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with you about the notability of the website. What evidence is there that it's content is peer reviewed? WJBscribe (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Will this ever be more then a dictionary definition? The fact that it is copied from one leads me to say no at this time. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IC's site is copied from Wipipedia (or vice versa), and is in any event user-contributed. From IC's "BDSM Dictionary" frontpage: "People with IC profiles can add or edit entries themselves, and help to build up the Dictionary as a comprehensive guide to BDSM. Please read the Dictionary help page for guidelines about the style and content of entries. The Dictionary web board can be used to discuss the wording of entries and the general direction of improvements to the Dictionary." (Emphasis mine.) No part of that states or implies that there's anything more than a user editing process, like any wiki. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. conensus is to delete MBisanz talk 13:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Old AI

Good Old AI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Though there are many hits for this group on Google Scholar, It seems none of those hits are independent, or provide more than trivial coverage. It seems that the hits originate mainly from papers written by Đurić, and Jovanovic, both members of the group. The group verifiable excists, and has members, but apart from that, very little can be said about it that is verifiable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient notability for an encyclopedia article. Seems to fall in between WP:PROF and WP:GROUP, but doesn't meet either. Orpheus (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Hi everyone, I am the creator of this page. I have found on Wikipedia several pages about research groups in different areas. That inspired me to write about this group because I think that is unique group in our country Serbia and maybe in the region. Members of the group have some remarkable articles and projects and they are well known and are highly respected in area of semantic web research. This group is an example that no mater how country is small or how uninterested in area of research, small initiative, like this group is, can make its contribution. Is there a way for me to make this article notable? How to find and add needed resources. I am new in writing articles so I would appreciate any help. Thank you in front.Nmilikic (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nmilikic! In order for there to be an article on the research group, there needs to be substantial information from reliable, third-party sources. If you know of descriptions or criticisms of the organization printed in a magazine, book, or available someplace else that has been written by someone not affiliated with the group, then it might be eligible to be kept. Otherwise, Delete. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your comments and advices. For example, group is mentioned on the blog of well known magazine about Semantic web, Nodalities Magazine, where an article of one member of the group was published. Does that count as reliable resource or it has to be an article dedicated only to the group? Thank you for the answer. Nmilikic (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, for me it doesn't. The group is mentioned in the article, but not more than that. The only thing that the article actually says about the group, is that Milan Stankovic is a member of the group. Other than that, there is nothing that would be seen as significant coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 17:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:ORG. I looked up various hits that one gets from GoogleScholar/GoogleBooks and they seem to be mostly acknowledgements from the articles written by the members of the "Good Old AI" group itself. To establsih notability one would need to demonstrate substantial coverage of the group itself by sources that are independent from it. Nsk92 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where It's At (TV channel)

Where It's At (TV channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although this network is said to have been short-lived, I Googled it and came up with nothing. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 17:06, 7 September 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) 01:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable; likely just bought paid programming time from another channel as a test and didn't end up going further than that. Nate • (chatter) 09:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per arguments and lack of sources to merge MBisanz talk 13:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Wilson

Morris Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BLP1E - played a minor role in the investigation of a major crime (so minor our main article doesn't even mention him). Hut 8.5 19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any referenced information in the article. Hut 8.5 17:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to Jimi Hendrix discography. Arguments to selectively merge appear to lack widespread support, and rationales are weak judging by the articles themselves. As this is a merge decision, it may be revisited later on the talk pages of the respective articles (or the merge target, or a WikiProject) instead of needing to be brought back to AfD. lifebaka++ 14:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Hall Experience

Albert Hall Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an unofficial and unnotable album by Jimi Hendrix. There is not enough information to warrant this album's own page anyway. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also unnotable, unofficial Hendrix albums:

Early Years (Jimi Hendrix album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jimi By Himself: The Home Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jimi Hendrix (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Kings' Jam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Last Experience Concert: Live at the Royal Albert Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Last Experience (box set) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Night Life (Jimi Hendrix album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rainbow Bridge (soundtracks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper ǀ 76 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I hate to relist again, as resolution is needed and assumedly desired here, but after looking at the different album articles, they seem to be different enough to not get "blanket treatment". Some of them are obvious merges (single paragraph + tracklisting), while others seem to be well written and fleshed out a bit beyond what I'd be comfortable merging. I don't think a "merge" of this many articles is appropriate. It's Jimi Hendrix. Again, some are compilations and posthumous, but still, Jimi Hendrix. I think this needs a wider audience before several quality articles get wiped away and buried in a "discography" article. Relisting for now. Keeper ǀ 76 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all.......except, Jimi Hendrix (album), The Last Experience Concert: Live at the Royal Albert Hall (needs rename), and Rainbow Bridge (soundtracks) (needs rename). Those ones have independent coverage in reliable sources, the Allmusic reviews, to warrant having their own articles per WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 09:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 20:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Boone

Mary Boone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination; article was speedy deleted under A7 criteria, and subsequently contested at DRV. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 7 The deleting administrator has agreed to the deletion being overturned and the article being listed here for discussion. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Dealer and gallery central to 1980's art market. Found and promoted many important contemporary artists. I will expand the article and add references accordingly.--Knulclunk (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did a total rewrite. Feel free to expand.--Knulclunk (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) --Knulclunk (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cristy Candler

Cristy Candler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This actress seems to have only done one role. Schuym1 (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn Enough sources have popped up during the course of this afd that I feel WP:CRYSTAL is no longer violated. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Life of a Song

The Life of a Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL. Only seondary source at all is the Roughstock blog cited, which I'm not entirely sure is a reliable source. Absolutely nothing else than the duo's own website even verifies this album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- it appears as though there are sourced track listing and info about it CloversMallRat (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think the sources can be trusted. The official site is usually very reliable and I think Roughstock is reliable too. RidersDX (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nomination was based on notability. Notability has been asserted but I haven't seen any suggestion that you acquire notability simply by being old. Outwith that, the standard measurement is the existence of multiple non-trivial reliable references. There are absence and closing against policy, not headcount, confirms that notability hasn't been demonstrated. Please feel free to ask on my talk if you can find some more sources. Spartaz Humbug! 20:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onezima "Oni" Ponder

AfDs for this article:
Onezima "Oni" Ponder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject does not meet primary notability guidelines that require coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources. Only source currently available is one news article that would not allow for one to write a substantial, neutral biography on this individual. Someone has to be the oldest in each state, and Ponder happens to be it; beyond that, there's no evidence of notability. Cheers, CP 15:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If being just a member of a football team is notable (see Keeley Dorsey, then it's not too much to expect that being the oldest person in the state (out of 17 million) isn't. Ok, although I doubt she is actually the oldest in the state, and this may have been a premature article creation, this woman appears to be in good shape and her age is validatable (the census matches have already been located) even though not yet officially accepted. Also, simply because there is just one article presently attached doesn't mean there are others...in fact there are several others, some for her 109th birthday, some in between. Ryoung122 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: it seems that the Keeley Dorsey article was deleted while I was gone.Ryoung122 05:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete for now I think it is premature to create an article. We cant assume she is in good shape and will live long enough to gain notability. I think WP:CBALL applies here. --Npnunda (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If that is the case, and the decision is to delete, it should be noted that future recreation might be different if, say, she is still living some 3 years from now. Ryoung122 06:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. As per user Ryoung122, who actually means "doesn't mean there aren't others", and so I will add them in the article very soon indeed. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Bart please clarify. By "doesn't mean there aren't others" are you saying there are other non notable articles on Wikipedia and so even though Oni Ponder isn't notable we should keep the article. That's what it seems to sound like to me. Also not really WP policy WP:NOTE --Npnunda (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you read my comment, than Bart's, it is clear that I was saying that there are other citations (which I added to the talk page) and that Bart planned to add them to the article. No one said anything about other articles.Ryoung122 09:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about a compromise? Oh! Your right Robert I did misread that comment. Sorry about that Bart. What if we did this. Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States for now. Then we could work on the article and expand it. Then, in a few years, give Onezima her own article. This is what we did with Catherine Dahlheimer Hagel. I would be curious to see what Canadian Paul thought of this idea. --Npnunda (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what going to happen if this article gets "deleted" anyhow, since people are creating redirects for articles like Fernand Goux and Aniţica Butariu. I am seeking a formal community consensus that says that this article is not to return unless more sources become available that can expand this into a full, neutral biography that is in full compliance with Wikipedia policies. Someone can add this material to the list if they want, but this is an unlikely redirect term. Cheers, CP 15:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the creation of redirects really has much to do with this article. I note that Fernand Goux is "one of 12" remaining WWI veterans. In addition, being a unique historical figure isn't something that will repeat. Anitica Butariu is held out as a national recordholder, but issues remain due to the language barrier and sourcing (many of the original articles appeared on the web in 1997, and early links are unlikely to be preserved).

In this case, Onezima Ponder is just one of 1,000+ persons who have reached the age of 110, so her case is on a scale order much less than Goux or Butariu. Based on that, I wouldn't be surprised if the article is deleted. However, we have seen that in some cases, people are willing to put forth the effort to write a decent biography. I wanted to give the article creator a chance first to do that before we decide that it is not worth keeping.

Also, I suggest a re-do of the "list of living supercentenarians." If we list, for example, everyone verified to be 110+ (the U.S. has over 570 cases) then cases like this one will be put into perspective. A focus on a more scientific or demographic approach, rather than "those who love publicity get articles, those that don't get deleted" is needed.Ryoung122 02:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per well-written nom. If kept, move to Onezima Ponder as nicknames are not customarily included in article titles. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nomination is incorrect on more than one count. First, there are multiple sources for this case. For example,

http://www.ocala.com/article/20070904/NEWS/209040316/1001/NEWS01

http://www.thevillagesdailysun.com/articles/2007/11/17/villages/villages01.txt

Second, these articles aren't written by the person or family member, so the "neutral" charge is also fallacious.

Third, saying "someone has to be the oldest in Florida" is like saying "someone has to win the U.S. Open". There will always be people that become famous due to doing something that has to happen (such as winning the batting title in major league baseball...someone has to finish first). Of course, that still may not satisfy some people as to "notability," because ultimately "notability" is subjective, not objective. Currently, Wikipedia favors younger persons, sports figures, fictional TV and movie characters, video game characters, and current events. I don't see anything wrong with keeping this article, given that this woman is already rather unique--one out of 18 million hardly constitutes "ordinary."Ryoung122 09:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Soft redirect to wikt:various artists. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Various artists

Various artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dicdef, no hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Just because we've all heard of a term many times doesn't mean it needs an encyclopedia article. Oftentimes it's just a term... and thus suited for a dictionary. --Rividian (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable topic, as there is no "significant" coverage. Not even a definition, as this is a phrase like "assorted nuts" which is readily understood from its constituent words. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to compilation album, which uses the "Various Artists" term liberally. (Unless anyone's aware of other artistic fields where this term is used - I'm not aware of any but not sure.) Townlake (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well apparently there is a notable electronica act called "Various Artists" [6], but there is no Wikipedia article yet. I'm not aware of any individual songs credited to "Various Artists" (usually they come up with a name, see We Are the World). So your proposal for a redirect seems okay. We can create a dab page for the electronica group if needed, but for now I see no use (for which we have an article) except Compilation album. --Rividian (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Simply deleting this page would be disruptive. It has more than 500 incoming links (mostly from album infoboxes) that would suddenly turn red. And many of those (especially soundtracks) cannot accurately be redirected to compilation album. Hqb (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can a soft redirect to Wiktionary be done then? Would that make sense?Umbralcorax (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those red links could easily be removed with the unlink tab. Also, I think a soft direct would not be out of the question. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Redirect - Agreed... it should be a soft redirect to Wiktionary. --Pmedema (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Vladimirovich Kuznetsov

Dmitri Vladimirovich Kuznetsov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whilst this chap seems to have hit some newspapers for making kiddy-porn, I can see no evidence of leng-term notability and certainly nothing that makes WP:BLP1E and justifies a biography. Troikoalogo (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Generally, I vote to keep these kinds of things (most nominations of this sort are just people seeking to whitewash BLPs), but this seems to be a special case; there really isn't anything to indicate notability in the case of this particular person, or even anything to indicate that he was even convicted after his arrest. In cases of marginal-to-no notability when the BLP is nothing but negative, I don't see much reason to keep it. Celarnor Talk to me 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BIO1E. I found one burst of RS news coverage in 2000 then unreliable coverage after that. This could be a notable crime but the story just does not add up. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A single British news report, describing an arrest but not a conviction, isn't enough to keep this article. Wikipedia is not a directory of all the crimes that have ever been committed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a reliable source which confirms that he pleaded guilty. The article in the Observer (which was cited as Reference 5) does not seem to contain this information. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added additional sources to this article, including one documenting an admission of guilt. This seems to have been a major international investigation between US and UK Customs, as well as the MUR of the Moscow Police. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 07:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All you've added is more news stories, seemingly all from the same press association report. Nothing new here, and no evidence of any continuing significance.--Troikoalogo (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Demokratizatsiya (journal) is a peer-reviewed journal, there is a press release from the US Customs Service, and articles in both US and UK newspapers. If I could read Russian, I am sure I could locate more. That this story attracted news coverage on multiple continents, and none of the sources located so far are even from the subjects own country, indicates notability. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 12:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dubious notability.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having several publications about a person in mainstream newspapers is enough to establish notability per WP:Notability.Biophys (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable.--Miyokan (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surely a joint action by US, UK and Moscow authorities is notable, and the subject is not a garden variety porn producer, but it appears he is a convicted child murderer, in a rather horrific fashion. There are quite a few sources, and while I'd like to see more (anyone speak Ru? Should we ask on ru.wikipedia.org?) this does seem to meet notability, although in a horribly tragic fashion. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What sources say this? Sources provided so far say that Kuznetsov was arrested as the distributor and alleged ringleader in February 2000 and then released under amnesty in September 2000. RS coverage ends there. As I said above, this sounds like a notable crime, except the events don't fit together in a verifiable (or even completely plausible) manner. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not he was convicted is completely irrelevant. The sources say he admitted supplying the pornography, and multiple sources acrosss multiple continents far surpass any requirements in WP:5P and WP:NOTE. Exactly what is the issue with not keeping this more than adequately sourced article? Jim Miller See me | Touch me 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Gene93k is correct (thanks for the gentle nudge to re-check the sources, Gene) - a porn supplier is completely different matter from what the article describes. I'm thinking at this point that it would be best to delete, unless you have sources to back up what the article claims. Otherwise, if the article is trimmed to what the sources support, it is a non-blip on the notability scale. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unnecessary disamb seicer | talk | contribs 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Dodge (disambiguation)

Sam Dodge (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary dab. The only other two entries are red links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redlinks have been there for a year with no articles forthcoming. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Red links on dab pages are completely allowed. Red links should be included if there is a redlink on another Wiki page, and if there is evidence of notability. These 2 redlinks don't appear to be notable. Red Dawn doesn't show a 'Sam Dodge', and the appropriate imdb page suggests he is distinctly non-notable. The aviator does appear as redlink (at Aviation High School (Redondo Beach, California)) but in a list marked 'Notable Alumni' with no further info. Googling gives a possible match here (scroll down) and again he doesn't seem particularly notable, so deletion of this page is appropriate. If there was evidence of notability for the redlinks it wouldn't matter how long they had been there. Tassedethe (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will the persecution of actors whose sole credit is "Man at Drive-In" never cease? Can't find much on the other redlink either. Delete. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I started looking at creating stubs for the the redlinks, but what little information I could find didn't show them to be sufficiently notable to justify articles. Jll (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I think by WP:SNOW, the result was going to be to delete anyway. The original editor requested deletion via a message on the talk page, so it also qualifies for deletion under speedy criterion G7. —C.Fred (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Symmons

Gail Symmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article dodges speedy deletion under A7 by being about a fictional radio host and not the webcast itself. However, the article is the complete fictional history of the character. It does nothing to demonstrate the character's real-world notability, nor does it provide a single source (much less a reliable one). —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The article is written of a fictional character (based on a real person). We aren't finished with the article yet and will be adding references. --Jamesbream (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest adding the references now. That way, other users can assist in building the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability and verifiability criteria for a start. Author(s) should be politely pointed in the direction of WP:COI and WP:OWN as well as the usual beginner help files like WP:N, WP:V, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 03:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tweeks

The Tweeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. All references appear to be self-published, failing WP:V#Self-published sources. Two albums release on non-notable label (I couldn't find it via google), thus it fails WP:MUSIC. justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout (Australian game show)

Wipeout (Australian game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Thus is a contested speedy delete on an article for a future TV show. Contester has not given reasons to date. This seems to me to be just spam. Grahame (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Wouldn't it be better to wait for the outcome of the speedy before launching into AfD? WWGB (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WWGB's probably right in general - but I've just removed the speedy since there was nothing promotional about the wording of the article. It may however be a WP:CRYSTAL violation since the current sources don't look particularly reliable (second opinions welcome), and all I can find in reliable sources is fairly trivial coverage (e.g. [7], [8]) Olaf Davis | Talk 13:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on Channel Nine's page on the show, it's verifiable that the show is going into production. The show is reasonably notable as a result; the article should be expanded rather than deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep because I really liked the Peter Tomarken version when I was a kid because there seem to be just enough sources. I don't really see any blatant WP:CRYSTAL work here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wipeout (TV series). MuZemike (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am about to expand the article with the most information possible. The article is certainly not spam and is not against WP:CRYSTAL. The Official Nine Network site has mostly U.S. series information, as it is currently airing in Australia, but a registration form was available on the website for a period of time, now replaced with "Registrations are now closed". Also, Kelly Landry has just been named co-host. I'm sure this is enough to warrant the article to stay. --Lakeyboy (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The program is just a duplicate of the American Wipeout program, so there's nothing new to say about the format. After the series is on Australian television, it will then be worth merging one line of information into the main US Wipeout article.--Lester 03:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In current form it does not cite sufficient reliable sources. Should be redirected to Wipeout (TV series). Advertising / press releases from either the network or the production company don't help show notability.Garrie 05:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wipeout (2008 game show). I don't see the Australian edition in particular being a notable programme, but if it gets any secondary coverage (as opposed to an avalanche of press releases), they can be added to the main TV programme article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus (excluding the single purpose account) is that the subject is not an appropriate article topic, and that the contents are original research by synthesis.  Sandstein  20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tipping Point (political)

Tipping Point (political) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The original author has taken a rarely-used catch phrase (which already has an article on its generic use), taken a group of seven references that mention the phrase in only three (one of them in a comment on a blog, hardly a reliable source), and synthesized this using original research and personal opinion. The phrase is not notable enough to merit its own article, and the the author seems to be using rather specious grounds to support his assumptions, most of which don't even mention the phrase. Violates WP:OR and to a lesser extent WP:NEO. This might merit a short mention in the generic article Tipping point, but I'm a bit doubtful of even that. Contested PROD, removed by the original author, Duuude007. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure This is an interesting one. The article is synched to the current US presidential election and contains a clear pro-one-candidate slant, so if it's kept the article needs balancing. But I also believe the concept has unique relevance in politics, if good neutral sourcing can be located. Merger back to the main tipping point article would be difficult because that article is a beefed-up DAB page in its current form. Townlake (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I will admit that this AfD is not as cut-and-dried as most, but it's still enough IMHO. But enough about me. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha ha Hey, that's why we discuss these things right? There seems to be some potential overlap between this article and the tipping point (sociology) article - both articles might benefit from a merge. Looking forward to seeing what others think. Townlake (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changing opinion based on massive improvements over the last couple days. Possibly still too US-centric, but that can certainly be improved on. Townlake (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think use of the term with reference to politics is an encyclopedic topic. It wouldn't even merit a usage note in a dictionary. Compare Turning point (political). ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turning point (political) would be a less common term, it is not a very prominent buzzword as Tipping Point is. But personally, because of its similarities, I would consider nominating it as a redirect to Tipping Point (political). I have added a number of citations and examples in good measure as an attempt to better balance this article. I hope that it is now more satisfactory.Duuude007 (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have further expanded on subject matter and citations, and I believe that the articles and citations are at this point balanced. Please tell me what, if anything, it is still lacking, so that I can fix it, so that this article's flag for deletion can be removed, thank you. Duuude007 (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By Wikipedia policy, the AfD notice will not be removed until the discussion is closed and the outcome carried out by an administrator. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article it well cited and written and couldn’t hurt to have such Information on had as it’s neither unbalanced nor irrelevant it thus deserves not to be deleted.Collinsas (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — Collinsas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • But the subject is not notable enough on its own. I'll trot out an old line of mine: "The best-written article in the world isn't worth a thing if the subject is not notable." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me for my ignorance, but since when was the once spoken strategery more worthy for notability than the often spoken tipping point? Especially one with a mere 5 citations? Duuude007 (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct WP:OSE General avoidance principal invalidates my "Other stuff exists" argument, so I rescind it. The same policy would appear to apply to Ningauble's "Other stuff does not exist" argument. I submit a new argument along with a new update, that with the combination of 39 unique, verified citations with 15 using the term "tipping point", many of which from reputable sources, including a detailed analysis of the word's origin and why it pertains to politics specifically over merely social sciences, as well as quotes from world political and business leaders, referring specifically to the political aspect of a Tipping Point, that it does indeed have a significant amount of notability. Thanks for listening. Duuude007 (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that more than half the references do not even contain the phrase "tipping point" in their title or text. I checked every one of them. I think that you've "link-bombed" this article in order to save it from deletion, but in doing so you have included many references that don't really apply, or which may apply in your opinion but cannot be independently verified. I might also add that the majority of these references come from sources that most observers would consider to be on the left side of the political spectrum, so there may be some neutral point of view issues creeping in the back door here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye, I saw and had previously addressed that concern. That is when I went back over the documentation and made certain that there was an absolute fair balance in right, neutral and left wing references. There is a quote from Mccain,, one with Lieberman endorsing McCain, another with Republican Radio Talk show host Glenn beck talking about "tipping" points and McCain, two references to Republican Abraham Lincoln at least three examples of controversies against Obama, two citations against Clinton, two against Kerry. That is twelve right there, which are all right-slanted articles. I balanced right, left and neutral, and satisfying that request is also why there are some articles that don't have the term "tipping point" in them, but merely to have a point-counter point argument. Because the novel (the term's origin in this form) was only published in 2000, the further back you go, the less likely the term will be used in analyses, but the relevance still exists. Duuude007 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you might do better to remove the refs that don't mention tipping points specifically. That is more of an issue than NPOV. It's more important that some other independent source recognizes the phrase "tipping point" than assuming a certain event constitutes one. I'll have to say your improvements are making a better case, but I'm still not totally convinced. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Contributor Duuude007 has asked me to reassess in light of recent changes in the article. I offer the following observations in the spirit of constructive criticism, and apologize to editors who may feel this goes into too much depth for an AfD discussion. I have a couple problems with the article, and a comment on the general approach. Please bear with me as I treat each separately:
  1. It should be noted that this is not a new, or newly noticed phenomenon. As the lead correctly observes, "tipping point" is a recent buzzword. Its use in the general media can trace its beginnings to Gladwell's popular 2000 book, and its application to electoral politics is recent enough to be considered a neologism . No doubt definitions for buzzwords are useful, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary and eschews neologisms.
  2. The body of the article reads like an essay on an aspect of electoral dynamics. There is a substantial body of literature treating these phenomena in depth from many perspectives, ranging from media policy to electoral strategy. By citing instances and incidents involving these phenomena, rather than reliable sources that address the subject broadly and in depth, the article becomes a piece of original research about this aspect of electoral dynamics.
  3. If the intent in assembling all these references is merely to demonstrate general adoption of the buzzword by quantity of use-cases, then this is unnecessary because, as noted above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary anyway. If, on the other hand, the intent is to create an article about the phenomenon to which the buzzword refers, then this illustrates one of the pitfalls of neologisms: research keyed to a neologism is bound to miss established literature that antedates the neologism or that eschews it as too informal.
To summarize in the hopelessly terse style common to AFD discussions: The article combines a WP:NEO buzzword WP:DICDEF with an WP:OR electoral dynamics WP:SYNTH. I hope this helps. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said — summarizes my thoughts very well, better than I've done myself. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say that I feel more defeated than coached on article improvement. I am not certain at this stage other than what Realkyhick suggested that I could do to satisfy your demands, if even that, but I am willing to go to whatever ends to hopefully bring this to consensus, hence my prompt improvements upon request of the people in this discussion. If you are telling me to give up because this is not a place to edjucate people on a major aspect of our political, popular culture, then so be it. But that is how I feel, that is how passionate I am about it. Duuude007 (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry if you feel dumped on. I was really trying to help you understand what Wikipedia is trying to do, rather than how to improve the article. Not that it can't be done, but that you would need a different approach and a lot of research. I sympathize with your frustration, but bear in mind that the more important the topic, the harder it is to write a good article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I am more than willing to go to those lengths. At this point, while I am improving citation quality, I suppose that is what I am requesting advice on: on what factors of the article are most important to improve and how, so that this doesn't have to be considered a waste of time, due to lack of consensus. cheers, Duuude007 (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think part of the problem lies in your opinion that a "tipping point" is a major aspect of contemporary politics, and you seem to be in a distinct minority in that belief. I would call it a minor catch phrase that finds occasional use by bloggers and the talking-head crowd that incessantly occupies the green rooms of Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So when Kerry and McCain, and British foreign Minister triesman: when they say it in the context of politics, they are irrelevant talking heads? I omitted Kerry's example from the article for the sake of balance. I also did a quick search on some previous presidential candidate wiki articles, and found the term also referenced on Al Gore and John Kerry. It is not as disconnected from our culture as you think. There might be a chance... of it being a candidate merger with the Bandwagon effect-Social Proof merger already being discussed. I would be willing to consider that, if consensus cannot be reached on its own. Duuude007 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. This is a synthesis of the tipping point concept as applied to politics, nothing more. Topic does not stand on its own. RayAYang (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SYNTH of the sociology version and politics? I can confidently assure you that I am far from the first or the 2nd, or the 1000th person to use the term in a purely political way, outside of sociology. The article even includes quotes backing up the fact that since the book was published in 2000, the concept was considered and adopted as a natural phenomenon in politics as well. As for the argument that you seem to be leaning to that sociopolitical science "isnt" social science, hey thats a grey area, I might bite. But if it were really that simple, then a merger of even "some" of this article would be valid with Tipping point (sociology), but that article itself is barely qualified to be more than a stub, with only two small paragraphs and zero citation references to back up the main article topic. Duuude007 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not the news, nor is it a 2008 US presidential election campaign analysis site. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is neither news nor specifically tied to one campaign. Heck, if you read the article, there are several examples that have absolutely nothing to do with McCain or Obama. And NPOV is not a valid challenge, the argument has already thoroughly been debunked. Duuude007 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Maguire

Cathy Maguire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article about an Irish musician, I haven't been able to find any mentions in reliable-sources or indeed any further information about her or the albums the article claims have been released. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. ~ mazca t | c 13:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there are indeed no verifiable sources in the article for the various claims of notability. The three published albums cannot be traced and are hence not notable. She performed on the Irish national television RTÉ.[9], but that does not seem to be enough according to WP:MUSIC. Han-Kwang (t) 15:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep - with the reference in The Argus newspaper provided by Michig below, and the couple of words on her background during the TV show, I'd say it (just barely) meets criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC (multiple published works). Personally I'd still rather say "delete" since even on the website of the artist there are not even titles of any of her CDs, but I'll follow the Wikipedia guideline here. Han-Kwang (t) 05:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After a couple of minutes searching on Google, I found this from The Times which backs up some of the information in the article. Her performance on popular national TV show The Late Late Show, can be seen here, the introduction to her performance confirming her earlier career and 3 albums. There's also an article about her from The Argus here. --Michig (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some further coverage here of a performance for the US Ambassador and Irish PM.--Michig (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It could serve as a reference, but it does not classify as "media coverage" supporting notability IMO. Han-Kwang (t) 15:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:V and WP:MUSIC. (With no prejudice to recreation if relevance sources/etc can be provided.) There isn't a single cite in the article itself (therefore serious WP:V issues). Also, per Hankwang, while there is some "second-hand" references to "3 albums while a child", there are no original sources which provide specific details of these albums (titles? release dates? sales?), nor any references to label signings, awards, charted hits, etc. With every respect intended, appearing on the Late Late or being defamed by a blogger doesn't really constitute a meet on "significant coverage" on their own. (The Times article isn't about the article subject. It's about the libel action. And therefore doesn't really contribute to notability.) Guliolopez (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of Gears of War

Weapons of Gears of War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Despite the presence of secondary sources, the bulk of the descriptions of these weapons are written as game guide material and are not appropriate for WP. Those weapons that have been shown to be notable outside of the exact gun mechanics inside the game (such as the Lancer) should be merged to Gears of War. (I believe there already was a Gears of War weapon list that was deleted about a year ago, but I don't believe this can be speedied as I cannot find where that list went to easily.) MASEM 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Delete As said, this is mostly gameguide content. It might have minimal real-world information which can be added into Gears of War if needs be—but otherwise this just flies in the face of WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:VGSCOPE as unsuitable material. Once the gameguide content is purged from the article, there wouldn't be enough left to warrant an independent article. In any case, this needs to be removed, although a transwiki may be prudent. -- Sabre (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. If there is an appropriate specialist wiki, it could be transferred there. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Previous AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gears of War Weapons List. This article has apparently been modified somewhat from the version deleted at that time. Deor (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to StrategyWiki per Stifle's recommendation. Note that if the new version of the article is even slightly different than the first version, G4 criteria for speedy deletion cannot apply. MuZemike (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Note that if the new version of the article is even slightly different than the first version, G4 criteria for speedy deletion cannot apply" is not strictly speaking correct. G4 says that a new version is speediable if it is "substantially identical to the deleted version and […] any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." However, no one's proposing that this article be speedied, as near as I can tell. Deor (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The StrategyWiki page has very similar information as this article, so Transwikiing to StrategyWiki would not help here. MuZemike (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete: as a clear violation of WP:VGSCOPE. Wikipedia is not a strategy guide where we list every detail of every weapon. When covering a fictional world, we only provide a WP:CONCISEPLOT. Randomran (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — a clearly inappropriate article per WP:VGSCOPE. The material in the article is mostly game guide information. sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; This not what Wikipedia is for. — Coren (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete waaaaay too specific. Let's find a sister project and transwiki if at all possible. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete: as per per WP:VGSCOPE--SkyWalker (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Crows

Birmingham Crows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is about a defunct social Australian rules football club formerly operating in England. It has no sources and no claims of notability. Wikipedia should not be used for this trivia. Grahame (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Taken in isolation, I agree that this article is rather light. However, in the broader context of British Australian Rules Football League (and its mirror article AFL Britain, but that's a different issue) it contributes to rounding-out the broader, more comprehensive article. WWGB (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in the article proves notability. Unreferenced. Unverified.--Lester 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a social sporting comp. Is the BARFL even notable? Different discussion, but it would seem that none of the teams are. Redirect to the league... then argue about deleting the league too!Garrie 05:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing more than an oddity, and it would appear a struggling and possibly disappearing one at that. No claims to anything approaching notability. Murtoa (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), Wikipedia:Snowball clause; everyone, including nominator, happy to close as keep. Ros0709 (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norma (female name)

Norma (female name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Primarily a linkfarm with some unreferenced and speculative commentary. Rewrite or delete. Ros0709 (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I'd expect to find an article with this name on Wikipedia; it's notable and at least moderately encyclopaedic. Also, the cited grounds for deletion seem weak to me. "Unreferenced" is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds to go and find references. "Some speculative content" is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for editing. WP:POTENTIAL and WP:DEMOLISH appear to apply here.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait one second-before whosoever dissolves this Norma article, please consider that articles on Wikipedia require source and time-these sections don't always blossom overnight, so when proper sources/information are found, this section can become an official article. Neurotic heart (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should merge this into Norman as the name, not delete the Norma because Norma is important with extremely urgent history. So rather than almost completely deleting Norma (female name) can you please merge the article to the area of Norman (name)? Neurotic heart (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotic: You've gotta chillax. Nothing is getting deleted and nothing is getting merged. The article will be kept as is. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not seeing the linkfarm and "unreferenced" is not a ground for deletion. JuJube (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been improved and the linkfarm has gone. The "origin of" section could, and still can, be read in two ways - one of which implies it is unresearched and some vague supposition, or the other which is that the origin is really not known. I read the former when nominating but it seems clear to me now it is intended to be the latter; with that in mind it would be nice to clarify the text a bit. The subject is, of course, not at issue. The nomination was always weak; at issue was whether this was original research. But clearly this article is not going to be deleted and as all the !votes have been "keep" this can legitimately be closed as such by a non-admin. Ros0709 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. This is similar in importance and style to the Norman (name) article, albeit that article has been around longer and has grown. Over time, we should expect this article to similarly grow. Truthanado (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep we have disambig articles about most names, and usually slightly similar male and female names are not merged. Sticky Parkin 00:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Greatest Hits Ricky Martin Album

Upcoming Greatest Hits Ricky Martin Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This album will be notable, but at the moment it's too speculative, so fails WP:CRYSTAL and the good old WP:HAMMER Ged UK (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: We don't have a proper title for the album and there is little other information. What there is is unreferenced. As it stands it is no use. Better to delete it and let it be recreated under the correct title once details are available. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a perfect example of WP:HAMMER. Not good. SpecialK 12:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems like nearly every artist ends up with an article like this about themselves. There's simply not enough information available at this time to warrant an article. Completely unverifiable. naerii 12:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a textbook example of crystal-balling. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammer time. We don't even know the title or anything else. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTALHAMMER (props to TenPoundHammer for taking up the suggestion of creating a CRYSTALHAMMER shortcut!) 23skidoo (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, defaults to keep. It could legitimately be redirected and any editor is capable of making that editorial decision. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador

Aaron Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Anybody who knows me I am all for improving geographical and real world coverage but I am concerned that this is an article is on a place so small it may not be worth an article. This states the 1891 population was 15. There is little online to verify it, and if it was a notable village or any settlement in Canada it would have far more google hits and references on maps. The Bald One White cat 11:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since this was listed in a census, it does or more likely did legally exist. Thus, I don't think we can delete it. But there's absolutely no information online except reprints of that census, and a second census that identifies a guy as being from Aaron's Cove. Granted there might be more information offline, but we need to actually find that information first. I would say we should redirect this to an article on whatever region Aaron's Cove (the actual name, per the census) was located in. Since it was a place that legally existed, it's reasonable that someone will eventually be looking for an encyclopedia article on it. --Rividian (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found a listing for it at the Atlas of Canada, and added the coordinates to the article. Aaron Cove is also notable as a bay, and I have added it to Category:Bays of Newfoundland and Labrador. --Eastmain (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Database, atlas, census... these are the sources and they are distinct ways of organizing information, which have their place. I would still like to see what specifically encyclopedia information can be drummed up on this place. --Rividian (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if Blofeld of SPECTRE is concerned about WP:V, we should be concerned. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blofeld, this suprises me. Settlements are inherantly notable, and you have been a proponant of this. I understand that this was originally a substub, but we create them all the time. Given the time it will grow, as it has here. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has not grown beyond gazetteer data, though. Settlements aren't "inherently notable" just for the heck of it, we say they are almost always notable because there tends to be encyclopedic information written about them when we go to look for it. But if such coverage can't be found... it's theoretically possible that a settlement wouldn't be notable enough for a standalone article, this is especially true of long-defunct places. --Rividian (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Settlements are always a valid potential topic, yes, but "inherent notability" does not mean that a place is entitled to an unreferenced article. Valid reliable sources still need to be present — a stub referenced solely by gazetteer data doesn't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats exactly what I thought. It wasn't so much that oh "this is a cove it can't be notable", rather there was nothing to verify and little online which proved it was a populated place that prompted me. If it had been referenced and had some basic fact I would have maked it as patrolled on my New Page Patrol. Now I am the foremost person for insisting that google shouldn't be seen as the yoda for knoweldge, particularly in the developing world but for a Canadian settlement I thought it may have even had its own website. On the contrary I found little to confirm it. Perhaps there was more there to verify it but I only had limited time due to technical difficulties I'm experiencing with my PC. If they now have something to verify them OK, but it surprises me that if they were major places of note there doesn't seem to much going for them. The Bald One White cat 12:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The settlement is long gone, if the coordinates are correct, not even ruins remain in the aerial photograph. The cove itself is still there, but there are thousands of similar (unnamed) features nearby. At a certain point, having an article on this sort of thing becomes useless. I suggest an agreement to not mass-create stubs on abandoned towns unless they have some context. The editors at WP:WPSCHOOLS have made such an agreement, at least as far as elementary schools are concerned. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the settlement is historical doesn't magically mean the settlement never existed. Just because a settlement is not there doesn't mean it's not notable. Under your reasoning, feel free to attempt to delete the abandoned Midland, California that I created as it doesn't have any buildings left.--Oakshade (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said to delete it, I'm just hoping people won't create more like it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbot Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador

Keep OK this is acceptable now The Bald One White cat 13:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbot Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


Anybody who knows me I am all for improving geographical and real world coverage but I am concerned that this is an article is on a place so small it may not be worth an article. There is little online to verify it, and if it was a notable village or any settlement in Canada it would have far more google hits and references on maps. The Bald One White cat 11:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
  • Keep. I expanded the article. This is a bay as well as a settlement. --Eastmain (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is my understanding that both bays and settlements are inherently notable, and either way the sources provided within the article are acceptable. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blofeld, this suprises me. Settlements are inherantly notable, and you have been a proponant of this. I understand that this was originally a substub, but we create them all the time. Given the time it will grow, as it has here. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now it's been expanded I've moved fromm uncertain (probably merge) to a definite keep. By normal consensus places like this are notable and although I originally shared your concern about the brevity of the article I think the updates make the article long enough to be worth keeping. Dpmuk (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper ǀ 76 17:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 2009 (UK)

Big Brother 2009 (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing much else to say, the series won't be airing for at least 10 months and another series is planned before then (its Wiki article has also been deleted - twice). See-

Dalejenkins | 09:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Like Mikay said it is far too early for this article to be constructed. wait until the auditions in January 2009 before making the article.BountyHunter2008 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is not too early for this article to be constructed. From WP:CRYSTAL #1, "should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. " I believe that this TV series falls under that, due to the cited information about the sponsorship. Information about the preparation for the series is documented to reliable sources, that the contestants will be selected in January 2009, five months away. -Malkinann (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For same reasons as Malkinann, we know the show is going ahead and we know the auditions and selection process starts in a matter of weeks. I would also like to add a request for a Celebrity Big Brother 2009 UK article to be produced as this has been confirmed and is only a couple of months away. (90.205.46.67 (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I thought IPs couldn't vote at AFD. Correct me if I'm wrong. Dalejenkins | 13:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of such a rule, and I can't find any mention of it in the deletion policy. They can't nominate things for deletion since they can't create pages. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule barring IPs. "It's a discussion, not a vote." (The closer does have discretion to give less weight to remarks from newcomers.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because its airing months away doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a page. It will just save a lot of hassle nearer the time. The reason CBB 2009 has been deleted is because it hasn't been officially confirmed yet, BB10 has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.254.33 (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - announced TV series on a major network. Satisifies notability and avoids Crystal. 23skidoo (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It was confirmed by Davina on the final of BB9 on Channel 4 (BBUK's Major TV Channel) (BlackpoolKickboxer2008 (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: It is all very well for some people to say that it has been confirmed, but without confirmation that it passed Wiki policies and guidlines, specifying which parts, IT WILL GET DELETED. Dalejenkins | 19:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've specified which parts of WP:CRYSTAL I believe the article satisfies, could you please elaborate on which parts of WP:CRYSTAL you think it fails? Another part of WP:CRYSTAL it satisfies is the requirement for there to be something else to say about the show other than it will exist - e.g. The contestants will be chosen in January.-Malkinann (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer it to be deleted, but I'm sure it'll be kept. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Malkinann. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 04:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's all still trivial though isn't it? There are many things which have one or two statements which are confirmed, but the point is it's considerably early. The likelihood is that this article won't grow anymore until January, possibly even later.. which warrants it to be deleted, in my opinion. »—Mikay—talk—contribs→ 16:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - why should it be deleted because it's unlikely to be expanded significantly until January or possibly the airing? The examples at WP:CRYSTAL (the Olympics and the election) are unlikely to be significantly expanded until when the event is over. The article on this show is a stub, but it's a reliably sourced stub with potential to expand in the (relatively) near future. In WP:NOEFFORT it says that articles should be assessed based on their potential - as the show has been confirmed to be in the works, I believe it has potential. -Malkinann (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Fair enough, but it isn't the reliability of the article I'm questioning. The fact is that there is still another Celebrity series to go before the launch of this main series. If we have sources on this article which point to a contract renewed through to series eleven, then why doesn't somebody go ahead and create that article? Early is early, but it's almost a year before the actual series begins. »—Mikay—talk—contribs→ 09:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - The key thing is, can we say anything about the future series up to eleven other than the fact that they're probably going to exist? If not, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't support having an article for them. This article has other information on the UK BB 2009 series (which isn't original research) so I believe we can have an article on it. -Malkinann (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CBALL. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 13:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Virtual Science Library

Iraqi Virtual Science Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. No sources to indicate notability. It just seems to be a study tool for certain academics. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per lack of content , subject to change if someone can draw from the sources found. Mandsford (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 00:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AbsolutePunk.net

AbsolutePunk.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails wp:web, but is being offered as a reliable source in other Afds. The only reliable third party source is a local newspaper mentioning the site once - but the article's not about the site. Prod reverted without reason why. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t08:33z 08:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and possible COI: [11]. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t08:38z
  • Easy keep. As well as the stuff already in the article that asserts notability, it's regularly mentioned in reliable news sources. COI is irrelevant; we don't delete based on the article's author. Giggy (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "In the July 2007 issue of Blender, owner Jason Tate was named #18 in their list of "Top 25 Most Influential People in Online Music.". See also Google News, which as Giggy says, shows plenty of reliable sources. COI is annoying to be sure, but it's not a reason to delete an article. naerii 13:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • wp:web: "For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance. Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources". wp:web#Criteria: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." (my emphasis) -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t13:29z
      • Yes. I'm aware of that. Did you review the Google News hits provided? There is plenty there to show notability. naerii 13:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't see any reliable source there about the site. The two groups of reliable-y sources was about some basketball game, not the site. If there are RSes, they haven't been put it in the article yet. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-08t11:20z
  • Delete. Original edits were definite WP:COI, as are a good portion of first-and-only time editors to the article....there's even an entry on the talk page where the founder of the website threatens potential vandals with actions on the website. It's an advertising laced article about an advertising laced forum fansite. Notability isn't assumed because the site has tons of reviews and even more forum members. Easy Keep? That's odd. Btl (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, your argument is odd. How on earth does COI determine notability? Perhaps you should read the page you link to. Perhaps you should also attempt to rebutt our arguments instead of misrepresenting them. Giggy (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Google hits fail to assert notability of AbsolutePunk.net, they simply mention the site. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 19:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how this site distinguishes itself from many other non-notable sites. The article clearly exists on Wikipedia to drive traffic to the site. The fact that there are conflict of interest issues also suggests deletion, and quickly. =Axlq 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: seems notable for an on-line music community at the time of its founding. Ottre (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is customary, multiple "votes" from the same person and "votes" from unregistered users have been discounted. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laarni Losala

Laarni Losala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Nomination by Fetch dickson (talk · contribs).)


  • Delete. Person's notable only because she's a contestant at a TV show. Unless she becomes notable outside the show, this should be deleted. –Howard the Duck 09:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...Oh sorry is this what you mean...?

People notable only for one event Shortcuts: WP:BIO1E WP:ONEVENT 

   See also: WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E

When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event. In that case, the discussion of the person should be broken out from the event article in summary style.

Sadly, Laarni is notable in more than one event

The current definition of notable here in wikipedia is: Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.

Significant, interesting and unusual enough to deserve attention.

Isn't joining tons of contest significant. For the interesting part and the unusual part, it is actually rare to see a person who can see almost all genre, which makes her unusual and interesting.Eduhello (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I joined a quiz show. I even appeared for 2 episodes. And I made it to the frontpage of a national newspaper (like an extra in a group photo). That's 2 events. Should I have an article? No. Same thing here. –Howard the Duck 16:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now cool down, okay? Have you read the definition of notable? Significant, interesting and unusual enough to deserve attention.Eduhello (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THIS is what we mean when Wikipedians say notability. Starczamora (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can you list down the events the subject is notable other than Pinoy Dream Academy? Singing competitions during fiestas do not count as notable by the way. Starczamora (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to Comment
  • Campus Idol (nationwide interschool competition) winner
  • Sing-galing (nationwide competion broadcasted on television by ABC5) runner-up

Those are two oh her biggest wins if you really want a complete list, just send me a message on my talk page.Eduhello (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The subject, as far as I can see, is merely notable as a contestant of PDA Season 2. Unless she wins the competition, or at least becomes a runner-up (refer to Philippine Idol's winner Mau Marcelo and her runners-up Jan Nieto and Gian Magdangal), there should not be an article in the first place. Starczamora (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect, better to wait until she wins the Grand Prize PDA2 is over. Too premature to say if/when an article is warranted at this point. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Then why aren't the articles about American Idol Contestants deleted in the first place? They were there as early as Top 10 week.Eduhello (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FIestas?Fiestas? Oh sure, I cannot call a nationwide competition a fiesta. Well, when we say nationwide, it's the whole country not only a single municipality, city, province barrio or etc.Theuglyanimal (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The person in the article is not notable at all, unless she'll won the contest. Or because the person was only famous or popular just when she joined the contest, so that makes her only an "affiliate" of the said show. Furthermore, being a contestant of singing contests, or just because she/he has a great talent in singing, doesn't make someone notable, unless the person had already created a name by herself in the industry. --Fetch dickson (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep Due to the Following factors:

1. She can sing 11 out of 14 of most popular music genres while most people can only sing 2-3 out of 14 of the musical genres. (which I think will qualify for the unusual part of natability)
2.She is not only a game show contestant once that airs for months but at least twice.
3. Furthermore, she has won a nationwide singing competition and a runner-up in another.
4. She is already included in the top 6 of the competition. Top 6s are already runner-ups. The exact results are yet to be aired.
5. Her notability has been explained thoroughly in some parts of her article once you look at it. Click here to see it.Theuglyanimal (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable, fails referencing requirements of wp:v and wp:blp: uses WP which isn't a reliable source as source 24 times (possibly with massive GFDL copy/paste copyright violations) and the other 2 sources aren't reliable third party published sources either. The 5 keep votes here is from 2 users. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t08:49
Maybe you mean three:*Do not delete the article, the person discussed already received notability.. Jentaps (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC) and then me and then theuglyanimal.[reply]
Oh yeah if the problems are sources, i'll try and check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduhello (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for another alternative source on the web to replace the WP sources..Eduhello (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another reason to keep it, journalist has already written an article about her.[12][13]Eduhello (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The single source appears to be a blog of some sort. Wikipedia does not accept self-published sources. Starczamora (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not a blog. I'm actually surprise that administrators haven't yet made the redirection or the deletion of the page because I with theuglyanimal and Jentaps will most likely lose the case due to us being outnumbered by people who want the article be deleted.Eduhello (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have already added more reliable sources and replaced the biography sources. I still can't find an alternative source for the genre of the songs which i got from wikipedia. But, I say keep it.Eduhello (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but as said above we are not voting but rather a discussion to why this article must be kept. Eduhello (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the closing admin is wise enough to know all the keeps all come from person. –Howard the Duck 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That means you and your friend say keep in boldface one time and one time ONLY, that is it; you can make any other discussion/claims you like that is pertinent. MuZemike (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sorry, never do it again.Eduhello (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Joe Young Demo

Mighty Joe Young Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable demo tape by an early incarnation of Stone Temple Pilots. While STP is notable, this subject does not fulfill the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. The title's capitalized incorrectly, to boot. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - article blanked by creator. ... discospinster talk 02:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanaura

Humanaura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Let us be gentle and just call this original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- I would have prodded this. It's an unsourced, unverifiable poorly written cross-breed between original research and complete bollocks. Reyk YO! 07:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I see now that you did prod this in the first place. Reyk YO! 09:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per g1 and a1. Failing that delete per nom and Reyk. Prod was removed without reason. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t09:01z
  • As above, this appars to be OR, and certainly doesn't seem to be in any way neutral. However it could be a credible search term [14] so a redirect to Aura (paranormal) seems sensible.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. Edward321 (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Topaze Non-admin close. Reyk YO! 07:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topaze (disambiguation)

Topaze (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary duplication of Topaze, unlikely search term. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy redirect - do we really need to discuss this for five days? - Icewedge (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer MacLean

Jennifer MacLean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting general points here. Firstly, it implicitly accepts that there are insufficient references to justify retention but attributes that to prejudice rather than lack of notability -- there is no consensus for that being an argument for retention. Secondly, there is currently no consensus that being the chair (for one year) of a trade association confers notability -- this would be quite new. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I'm far from an expert on wikipedia precedents. She's obviously notable to me, someone working in the videogame industry, so I did a little searching to find out what wikipedia considers to be a notable person. I went here Wikipedia:Generally_notable_people and found these things that I thought applied. "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." I believe this is proved with the list of her credits referenced on the article page. Further down the page, under creative professionals, I believe these apply. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." I believe her inclusion in the list from Edge Magazine proves this. Also in being elected as Chair of a major industry organization. She was elected by her peers, not hired as an employee by the organization. "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Perhaps the article needs to make it more clear that she was influential in creating the Civilization games, one of the most well-known videogames even beyond the industry. Subversified (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The explanatory note to "enduring historical record" quoted reads Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians -- not the case here. As regards the body of work you mention, this is not referred to at all in the article. Richard Pinch (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin — There is an open request for comment on the admin in question as we speak. MuZemike (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lightweight guff per WP:NN and WP:BIO Shot info (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. MacLean is notable, considering that she's the chair of an international non-profit, and is listed as one of the most influential women in the industry. I do agree that the sources on this article could be improved, to clarify notability. --Elonka 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Not so much that I'm sold on the subject's notability - the award is about all that holds me here - but that this is being used as a blatant stalking horse is a WP:POINT violation is objectionable. To suggest that the subject is non-notable because she's chair of a company associated with an admin associated with a project to (wait for it) add or expand Wikipedia articles is baroque beyond belief. I just went to the link Mathsci posted, and saw the ghastly clarion call of: "The goal of the IGDA Wikipedia Initiative is to identify those IGDA game developers who are notable enough to have biographies on Wikipedia, who either do not yet have such a biography, or whose bio needs to be expanded, and to create or expand those biographies as appropriate." Is that wording any different from the mission statements of a hundred Wikiprojects? If you subtracted "IGDA game developers" and substituted "20th century African novelists" would anyone bat an eye? There may be bad faith at work here, but it isn't in the article.  Ravenswing  13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe that the argument "chair of allegedly notable organisation implies notable" is wrong: or at least, runs counter to WP:NOTINHERITED, where notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities would seem to apply. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete I'm trying to ignore the drama. The award comes close. If it were a game or book with such an award, I'd likely go weak keep. But with people we tend to be more selective. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment A single RS that covers the subject in any kind of detail would push this over the bar to keep for me. In a search of news, I'm finding her quoted in one article, and a PRwire article in another. But if something better does exist, consider this a keep vote. Hobit (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A brief mention in a top 100 list does not notability make, particularly when most of the other people in the list appear to be equally non-notable. We don't have an article for every vice-president or chair of directors of a notable organisation. - makomk (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Reuters calls her One of Industry's Most Influential Women here. The article just needs some expansion. XF Law (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, Reuters repeat the press release of the company she works for, quoting again the single article that named her one of the 100 most influential etc. The clue is in the Reuters URL and comparing it with the press release already cited in the article. The question remains as to whether that single article is enough to establish notability. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn' and Redirect'. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolmer's Boys' School

AfDs for this article:
Wolmer's Boys' School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional deleteRedirect - I agree with the nominator, but if the article is expanded with some more content and a reference confirming notability I think I would change it to keep. Most high schools will have received attention from the local media at some point, but the burden is on the article writer to find this information. Han-Kwang (t) 14:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Local media doesn't make schools notable. Schuym1 (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in WP:N that disallows local media. TerriersFan (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out which policy says so? I'd say coverage by a local newspaper (serving 100,000 or so subscribers) would do the job. Not everything needs to be covered by the NY Times. By the way, my response was inspired by WP:Notability (high schools) and the talk page, which is not an official guideline, but still food for thought. Han-Kwang (t) 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wolmer's School, an existing article on the whole school. TerriersFan (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, the proposed article is really short anyway. I see the redirect has already been made now. Han-Kwang (t) 15:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Mega Man characters. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auto (Mega Man)

Auto (Mega Man) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn part of a tail end of a video game series. Article also fails WP:NOT as the article is entirely trivia with no sources found. See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MuZemike (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clinching argument is the absence of non-trivial coverage of the subject. Spartaz Humbug! 20:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Ratcliffe

Mitch Ratcliffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD on WP:BIO grounds. If this man is notable, it's at best borderline and I'd appreciate to hear what the community thinks. He's a tech journalist, which means that he's written several articles and publications, and has been cited (mostly in passing) in others. The article's creator has provided several links to that effect on the article talk page. What has not surfaced, though, is the kind of coverage about the man himself that we would need for WP:BIO purposes: "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." For instance, no third party seems to have been interested enough about him to cover even the biographical basics: date and place of birth, etc.  Sandstein  05:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you mean to insinuate that I have ulterior motives for the nomination of this article, I am sorry to disappoint you. I am not aware of any role Ratcliffe may have had in that affair, and I care not about either the affair or the journalist.  Sandstein  08:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. I was merely pointing out the irony that we are currently discussing deleting the bio of a man who notably criticized the way Wikipedia handles bios just last year. - Davodd (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sources above
  • PBS: Cringely is not a reliable source. Period. end of story.
  • Executive travel: Fluff piece that cites the subject, not covers him.
  • Business week blog: doesn't cover the subject. trivial.
  • NYU journalism blog: Much less trivial. Discusses the subject's thoughts on different models of journalism. Doesn't really discuss the subject per se, but a little better.
  • Quoted as a source in the NYT on second life. The piece is not about the subject.
  • Same for the Pudget Sound Business journal.
  • Same for time magazine piece, literal 1 liner.
  • I didn't look at the salon piece yet.
  • IDK what is up with the AK bit. It's certainly not about this guy.
  • Look. Journalists write a lot. they write in venues that other journalists read. Tech evangalists also perform a critical function for journalists. They have pithy ways of explaining what are effectively opaque motives and processes to journalists. Those guys from NYT, Time, etc. all wanted to know how to tell their readers (in less than 50 words) what issue X was all about, but they didn't want to have to learn enough to say it themselves. Solution? Tech evangalists and earned media. The fact that a guy who writes about second life had his work quoted in articles on second life doesn't constitute coverage of the SUBJECT in reliable sources. For that we have to see that someone made an editorial decision to devote newspaper time to Ratcliffe (By writing a story), not just that his opinion on the subject was loud enough to be heard by the journalist trying to cover a different story. My read is that (from the sources cited above) this guy isn't notable. I compare him to Patrick Tyler, a journalist who has been working at the top of his field for years. If he hadn't written a notable book AND been involved in a notable to-do, there wouldn't be coverage of the guy to build an article with, despite his having written hundreds if not thousands of widely read articles. Protonk (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as User: Davodd. Citation as authority by multiple prominent reliable sources demonstrates notability to reasonable people. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Davodd (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my points above. This is a marginal BLP where no secondary sources have covered the subject in any significant detail. His biography is not a subject of public interest. He fails WP:BIO and WP:N, if barely. I'm not sure that we have any provision to keep articles on individuals who are cited in news pieces, but I can assure you that the general notability guideline doesn't cover it. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being mentioned in passing or being quoted by others is insufficient evidence of real notability, nor is it enough to base a real biography on. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this does pass WP:BIO since there is nontrivial (although not in-depth) coverage by multiple independent sources. The sources discussed above all seem to fall essentially into this category: when his opinions are quoted or his business matters are mentioned, these are, to me, examples of nontrivial coverage. In this case there seems to be enough of it to pass WP:BIO. I tried to do a filtered googlenews search to exclude articles written by him and still got 138 hits[16]. Even if a half of them are excludable, that is still quite a bit. A few quotes from these. From Onlamp[17]:This session, featuring Doc Searls, Cameron Barrett, Mitch Ratcliffe, and Halley Suitt was definitely about blogging, mostly about politics, and not at all about effectiveness. Mitch Ratcliffe played the role of the voice of reason, emphasizing the role of blogs as just another publishing tool. He also pointed out that blogs fall into the "horse-race" style of campaign coverage just as much as the mainstream media (Trippi's "broadcast politics"). From Time Magazine[18]:Says Mitch Ratcliffe, editor of the newsletter Digital Media: "I think consumers are going to be unimpressed for a decade or more." From Washington Post[19]:"This is a big myth," said Mitch Ratcliffe, who runs a year 2000 Web site for publisher Ziff-Davis Inc. "A properly formatted date field will not generate 9999 on September 9 under any circumstances." From New York Times[20]:"It's the first one-man war on the Internet," said Mitch Ratcliffe, a longtime Internet analyst who is editorial director of eCommerce Alert, a newsletter on electronic commerce. "Everyone on the 'Net is fascinated." From Los Angeles Times[21]:"If anything, they are consolidating their strength," says Mitch Ratcliffe, president of Internet/Media Strategies Inc., a Lakewood, Wash. ... From [[Business Week][22]:Via Mitch Ratcliffe, who explains that he’s working with a group to come up with tools that analyze the trajectory and speed of how ideas become influential online. “The first example of our technology, at www.mydensity.com, which tracks the social network two degrees around any URL, doesn’t get to any of the influence tracking by topic/theme, but it is available in an enterprise service. From Milwaukee Journal Sentinel[23]:Mitch Ratcliffe, vice president of programming for ON24.com, said the trip had sparked a couple of ideas he'll pursue but that it didn't produce anything he ... From Los Angeles Times[24]:"It's really a very smart move," said Mitch Ratcliffe, editor of the San Francisco-based newsletter Digital Media. "With Kavner, CAA is an instantly ... From Seattle Post Intelligencer[25]:For example, blogger Mitch Ratcliffe urged Edwards to give a blogger a seat on his campaign bus, with complete access and without restrictions, should he decide to run for the 2008 Democratic nomination. From San Francisco Chronicle[26]:``People are watching investment conferences on the Web that they couldn't get into in person," said Mitch Ratcliffe, vice president of programming. ``The ability to see (corporate executives) so they can judge whether they believe them is very important." And dozens more like these. Individually none of these amounts to much but collectively they do. There is also a more in-depth biographical page about him at Microsoft Research, where he seems to have been a keynote speaker at a conference:[27]. I would say that taken together there is enough here to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The language of WP:N is unambiguous: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." (emphasis mine) A thousand quotes from him in articles written about other things does not in any way, shape and form satisfy WP:N as per Ratcliffe himself. A single convention bio doesn't cut it - I can link several for when I've been a panelist and speaker at conventions, and that doesn't make me notable. Is there a single source out there that satisfies WP:N?  RGTraynor  13:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With that standard, many (perhaps most) of the people listed in Category:Journalists would be need to be deleted. Ratcliffe is a nationally published and widly quoted American journalist. Notability for journalists is not WP:N, as creative artists, it is Notability of Writers/Authors. As for notability of a journalist, it appears that Ratcliffe fulfills the guideline suggestions of "co-creating, a significant or well-known work" (as a featured writer having been published in many significant technology periodicals) and, additionally, by being "widely cited by their peers," since many other journalists - his peers - are citing him (see above list of reliable sources by Nsk92) - Davodd (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, you're right: creative professionals is the standard here. Let's see: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." Any sources to back that criterion up? "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Which ones? "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (emphasis mine) This goes back to the basic problem that he is not, himself, the subject of any articles or reviews. It is not enough to create a body of work; that body of work must itself be the subject of reliable sources.  RGTraynor  15:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right, many, perhaps most of the journalists on wikipedia shouldn't have articles. That determination can be made on a case by case basis. I believe that most people mis-apply WP:N to individuals whose business it is to be quoted by the media. We treat those quotes as some sort of proxy coverage rather than just taking them for what they are. Protonk (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per traynors comment above. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Protonk's and RGTraynor's arguments. I don't really have anything to add. Equendil Talk 20:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 13:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Vomit Records

Digital Vomit Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contains a vague assertation of notability, so I contested an A7. Still, there seem to be no reliable third party sources, so it fails WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 00:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:CORP. RockManQ (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CORP and per simple common sense that a record label with no notable artists by definition cannot be notable itelf. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does this look familiar... I could've sworn I saw this at some point and deleted it. Must've been another non-notable record company. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper ǀ 76 15:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bear Behaving Badly Episodes

List of Bear Behaving Badly Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable - article does nothing to suggest notability of any kind, including linking to external, verifiable, third-party sources. TalkIslander 09:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- That it is written by a newcomer is irrelevant.--MrFishGo Fish 14:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant in as far that newbies are more likely to create unnecessary articles (in good faith) and then abandon them (it's not a crime). But if he doesn't even show up in this AfD to defend his creation, why should someone else defend it for him? This AfD is just cleaning up after him, for better or for worse. – sgeureka t•c 15:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point that newbies are more likely to create inappropriate articles would be relevant only if we could not examine the article and could only guess as to its merit based upon the history of its creator. MrFish is not defending the creator or the article; he is defending logical discourse. —SlamDiego←T 08:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean for this throw-away part of my comment to start a major wiki philosophy debate. My point was merely that this list may have been created in good-faith, but its deletion/redirection would be of no loss to wikipedia if we agreed that it is indeed redundant and (worse) incomplete und unsourced. – sgeureka t•c 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true, however according to the article the show runs to 26 episodes at present and is ongoing. I assume it won't be kept in the main article forever, and merging just to unmerge it later is just beaurocracy for beaurocracy's sake. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This makes the assumption that a list of episodes will ever be notable enough for this programme. I am personally of the opinion that it won't, hence I started this AfD. TalkIslander 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hammond Divisional Office of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana

Hammond Divisional Office of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

District courts are notable, but I doubt that branch offices are. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTDIR this is simply a white pages entry with very minor organizational information, not encyclopedic. Sswonk (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-notable book. No ISBN noted, and query on Amazon, etc. proved nothing seicer | talk | contribs 00:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date, Mate, Rate, Repeat

Date, Mate, Rate, Repeat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:BK. Unable to locate any substantive mention at all via google. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The book's cover was uploaded by the original author of the article, who claims to be the owner of the copyright on the image. Horselover Frost (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BK, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable book. Schuym1 (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability and a quick search indicates nothing to support one. Cheers, CP 21:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lack of GHITS is not a criteria for non notability. Notability is clearly established and the 5 pillars apply here as well. The excessive deletionism here is preventing important and notable articles for appearing in Wikipedia. Testmasterflex (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - lack of google hits can be indicative of non-notability. I fail to see how notability is clearly established as the article makes no assertion of notability, the article provides no references, you provide no references, no other editor in this AFD discussion has found any references. And the whole 5 pillars schtick didn't fly with Le Grand Citrouille so aping this silliness isn't helpful -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject of the article come nowhere close to meeting the requirements set out in WP:BK or the general notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero reliable sources about the book -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hellgate Harmonie

Hellgate Harmonie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Amateur wind ensemble" which plays in "relaxed environments such as beer gardens." There are some Google hits which are blogs and YouTube, none that count as reliable secondary sources. NN per WP:MUSIC. Prod removed by an IP address who didn't bother to improve the article. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are a lot of mentions, including a brief mention in the New York Times - [28]. It's borderline stuff, and strictly by the guidelines this should go, but I'm inclined to let the article grow as I feel our guidelines do not fully take into account the notability assumed by multiple internet coverage. There is an inbalance where a hundred mentions on specialist blogs and forums are discounted, yet one jobbing journalist knocking together an article is seen as reliable, even if that journalist used the internet as a source (which they do). As Hellgate Harmonie have some modest notability and an internet presence, a curious reader may wish to turn to Wikipedia for unbiased and neutral information. It would be useful if we could provide that. SilkTork *YES! 09:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:V. As a response to the above, the reason internet hype like blogs and forum posts and the like aren't taken as seriously as published sources is because, among other things, they lack editorial control, are easy to fake, and tend to be forgotten quickly. If the notability is there, reliable sources will follow. It's that simple. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going with delete here. What they're doing is cool, and I like it, but that's not enough to sustain here, because beyond NYC, they don't seem to be really all that notable. Change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting the notability requirements in WP:MUSIC or in general. Nuttah (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BBC News. MBisanz talk 08:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Weekend News

BBC Weekend News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable on its own - this is already covered to a great enough depth in the parent article, BBC News - this article reads more like a cross between an advert and a TV schedule - two things that Wikipedia is not. TalkIslander 09:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 04:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would there be an appropriate section of the BBC News article that this article could be redirected (worst case) or merged (best case) to? -- saberwyn 06:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper ǀ 76 20:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into BBC News. Not sufficiently notable on its own and would benefit from the wider context on that page. Could also then stimulate wider debate about whether presenters and scheduiles are necessary at all. I see the AfD has been removed from the page, incidentally. Mcewan (talk) 13:28, 16 September 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++ 04:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Redirect, or use Summary Style Someone just needs to be do it and stop relisting it here. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was relist delete and redirect :) Daniel (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsround Specials

Newsround Specials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is already covered to a great enough depth in the parent article, Newsround. TalkIslander 09:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 04:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If deleted, recreate as anchored redirect to Newsround#Nesround Specials as plausible search term. I have no stance on the actual deletion or otherwise of this article. -- saberwyn 04:35, 7 September 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 03:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how many times does a AfD get relisted to generate more discussion? IMO, if there have been no comments for deletion after the first relisting, the second should default to keep. Lugnuts (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's hardly consensus to keep, though, just as there's no consensus to delete. Relisting is the only option. TalkIslander 08:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Newsround#Nesround Specials - no need for this to have it's own article --T-rex 18:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Newsround Specials

List of Newsround Specials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable list of special 'Newsround' episodes. Any info that is notable could easily be gleened and placed in the parent article, Newsround. TalkIslander 09:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 04:12, 7 September 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 03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how many times does a AfD get relisted to generate more discussion? IMO, if there have been no comments for deletion after the first relisting, the second should default to keep. Lugnuts (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's hardly consensus to keep, though, just as there's no consensus to delete. Relisting is the only option. TalkIslander 08:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Megre to Newsround or delete. It's not something easily quantified. I remember "specials" back in the 70's. Hiding T 10:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Current Newsround Presenters

List of Current Newsround Presenters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is something of a laundrey list for Newsround presenters. Knowing about which presenters do/did what to this degree of accuracy is not notable, and the whole list could be condensed and placed in the parent article, Newsround. TalkIslander 09:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 04:12, 7 September 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 03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how many times does a AfD get relisted to generate more discussion? IMO, if there have been no comments for deletion after the first relisting, the second should default to keep. Lugnuts (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's hardly consensus to keep, though, just as there's no consensus to delete. Relisting is the only option. TalkIslander 08:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Newsround or rertitle to list of Newsround presenters. Current is something which entrenches recentism. Hiding T 10:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See I tend to think just the opposite of talk. If people can't be bothered to comment than the nomination itself suggests "consensus" to delete. Either way as fat as this particular one goes and having only seen it Merge to appropriate section at Newsround. No need to spinout an article when the section within the main article will never grow "out of control" and is relatively easy to maintain. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a suitable encyclopedia article on it's own. Not against a merge either. --HighKing (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus (default keep). Discussion has failed to receive adequate participation to determine consensus, despite two relists. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Danar

Robin Danar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be an advertisement for a non-notable engineer/producer, completely failing WP:BIO. Some in-depth coverage from a reliable third-party source or two would change my mind. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 2 September 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) 03:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep no news hits is disturbing but between Altered States [29] and a large number of ghits that seem to address him directly I think he's marginally notable. JJL (talk) 00:27, 8 September 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) 01:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete per references found at Google News Archive. The only reliable source I can find is from LA Times. I'm not sure if this review from PopMatters is considered a reliable source. The rest of the articles in the Google News search mention him but are not really about him. Furthermore, of the four references in this article, only one is a reliable source. The rest are from a forum or his own website. The article doesn't show how he is notable, so he fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A (TV system).  Sandstein  20:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The A Big Picture

The A Big Picture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable late light movie block. Schuym1 (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recreation of article deleted after and afd. See below. Dlohcierekim 03:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brown nose

AfDs for this article:
Brown nose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Well, I think we all know what a "brown nose" is. The question is, is this just a dicdef, or is subject notable enough for an article? Declined speedy as it's not really nonsense. It even has a reference. Dlohcierekim 03:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oops. Did not think to check "brown noser." Speedy closing as recreation of article deleted as result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown noser. Cheers Dlohcierekim 03:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of disambiguation pages concerning siblings

List of disambiguation pages concerning siblings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We really don't need this. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pointless dab for more dabs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A disambiguation page....about disambiguation pages? Really? This breaks so many rules it would make my head explode to list each and every one of them. (Let's see, there's WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT, WP:DAB...) Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 04:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to retain sanity. See Russell's Paradox. MuZemike (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per MuZemike, who sees where this would lead. —SlamDiego←T 08:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, let's be clear - double DABs are specifically permissible under WP:DAB in appropriate circumstances. But this goes a step beyond - "siblings" is too broad an umbrella term to be a logical extension of that policy guideline. Townlake (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I created the page with a very inventive rationale which was going to make life so much easier for many readers ... sadly I cannot remember the rationale so it may as well go (but I can't quite bring myself to vote for deletion, it would feel like infanticide). Abtract (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I can't help thinking that a category would work just as well in this case, and we have the added precedent of wikipedia-specific categories to justify such a page. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh brother!! I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did, but I can't figure out what this would be used for. Mandsford (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nominator Withdrew Nomination. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Box Hockey

AfDs for this article:
    Box Hockey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    subject appears to be non-notable, unverifiable speedy keep - I wish to withdraw my nomination - notability and verifiability concerns have been addressed, no other editors currently support deletion. I am uncertain how to proceed from this point. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Non-notable. Schuym1 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Changed to Keep. Since you changed your nomination to speedy keep, maybe you should withdraw. Schuym1 (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Certainly needs sourcing and improvement but the subject is notable per WP:N. GoogleBooks alone gives 458 hits[30], most containing nontrivial coverage. This book[31], for example, contains a detailed description of the game that appears to verify most of the info in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mythical National Championship

    Mythical National Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article has been tagged as needing additional sourcing since June 2007. Slang term or neologism, with no official meaning or designation. Sourcing remains totally inadequate. If, after fifteen months, the article can't be sourced properly, then it should be deleted. Mr. Darcy talk 01:31, 7 September 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) 09:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 05:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. It's an established sportswriting term with over 2000 GNews results. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship, rather than keep. Though the article hints that the term isn't only used for determining the best "major" (Division I-A) college football team, that's what most of the 2,000 ghits refer to. It's kind of a tired old term that sportwriters sometimes use when they're arguing in favor of playoffs for I-A; sometimes it's called the "unofficial national championship". It's not entirely mythical or unofficial, because the NCAA official publications do acknowledge a list of champions determined by the wire services. If this is kept, it should be moved (in other words, title changed) to "Mythical national championship", to conform with the capitalization conventions used in other articles. Mandsford (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support that merger. Mr. Darcy talk 23:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's a well-known term describing a well-known topic; as stated on the page's talk page, it's definitely not a neologism. And while it could use more citations, the number has been growing. A merge with NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship would also be a fair compromise, imo, as long as the info is retained. Zeng8r (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. Synergy 06:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My Apocalypse

    My Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs --The Guy complain edits 00:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, you're completely right. Redirect to Death Magnetic until it's really confirmed and/or it charts. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per above.
    woops, the above was me. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    keep wat it ultimately comes down to, for me, in a limitless encyclopedia, is will this page be useful for someone. i think that it will, so lets keep it for now to see if its put out on cd. if its isnt a couple of months down the line, then we shud delete the article, but until then a definate keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.160.246 (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not a limitless encyclopaedia. :P Rehevkor ✉ 20:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    keep - it's a single, it's for sale on itunes by itself. end of discussion, surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.249.197 (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This deletion discussion is not a debate whether it's a single -- It's a debate over whether it is notable. --The Guy complain edits 21:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Radio and Records' website states that the song has hit #39 on their Active Rock chart. Radio and Records is a major US Chart which measures radio airplay. I'm not really sure if a #39 chart peak is enough to give an article to the track at this point in time. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not familiar with the char myself. But as is I feel there's not enough information to warrant an article of its own. Rehevkor ✉ 21:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kiss (Korn song)

    Kiss (Korn song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs --The Guy complain edits 00:13, 7 September 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 03:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This makes the song notable --T-rex 00:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This isn't an AfD about the band but one of their song. As the article states ""The song is Korn's most unsuccessful single to date". Too bad. Equendil Talk 19:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fish karate 09:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of films depicting the future

    List of films depicting the future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is a procedural nomination as required by DRV Discussion. The article was previously speedy-deleted, but that deletion was successfully challenged at DRV and not appropriate under speedy deletion criteria. I have no opinion on this article or discussion at this time. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 00:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 00:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete may be OK as a category, but as a list it's going to be far too long and broad. The films on it have too little in common to make it useful. Some of these are set so little into the future (at their time of release) that it's hardly helpful. Some are more alternate realities than the future per se. JJL (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per JJL. Indeed, this is too broad for a list; a category would be better. Nsk92 (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- I've got some severe concerns over original research. How do you decide whether a movie depicts the future and not, say, an alternate reality? Look at X-men for instance. That's got bits from the past in it where people have super powers, and it's just not so in our world, so you could argue that X-men is about an alternate reality. It's up to the editor to decide that sort of thing, because you'll rarely find reputable sources that discuss it, and that's OR. This list, by its nature, will always be riddled with it so it's got to go. Reyk YO! 02:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The purpose of a list over a category is the organization affordable by wikitext. As it is, it has none, and I don't see what organization scheme could possibly be used. A category would be much better. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Much better as a list, in addition to a category--the list offers the opportunity of providing context such as dates the film was made, the general subject, the director, etc. , thus assisting navigation. The additional material can be added--nobody is forced to do that all for any list or article all at once. There is no such thing as too broad a list if it is being properly maintained, as this one seems to be. If it gets too large, it can be divided, but I see this as every bit a justifiable as all film genre lists. Except of course to the people for who all lists are listcruft. Nobody is forcing them to read or work on them, and they should find better things to do than delete navigational devices that other people find useful. I am a little puzzled by the argument that " Some of these are set so little into the future (at their time of release) that it's hardly helpful" Why should that make the list unhelpful? DGG (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment what will one do with a film like The Happening (2008 film), which has a "Three months later" segment at the end? Is that the future (for that film) because it jumps like that? Animal House, at the end, discusses the future (e.g., Senator Bluto). Some films open with "In the near (or not-too-distant) future..." which basically means that they're in the current present but "This could happen tomorrow"; is that the future? They do use the word 'future', after all. All of these devices do include a mention or appearance of the future, but what the page seems to focus on is actually the 'futuristic' in keeping with its listing of Star Wars, which explicitly tells us that it happened in the distant past. The inclusion of films like Click (film) and Sphere seems to indicate that what the list is addressing is things with a futuristic feel, not things that literally transpire in the future. Same Time Next Year takes place over the course of 24 years. Does that eventually include the future? If not, how is it different from Back to the Future II in that regard? Why is the X-Men (film) series on but not other superhero films? Why is The Stepford Wives (2004 film) on it? I don't recall The Illustrated Man stating that this was the future, though I could be wrong. Critical analysis of The Fountain (as reflected at that article) is divided on the issue of whether it depicts a true future or whether "its abstract and futuristic elements (seem) to be non-literal representations" of a (possible? imagined?) future. Darren Aronofsky has declined to settle the matter. I find this list too unwieldy. The term 'future' is ill-defined and inconsistently applied. If taken literally it would include most films that cover a nontrivial period of time, I'd think. If not taken literally we're back to WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH. I think the authors want a list of sci-fi films with "depictions of the future" where the film is depicting a possible future that is clearly 'futuristic' and distinct in noticeable and important ways from the present; they seem to be including films that are set in the present but have strong sci-fi elements or involve technology that isn't publicly available even when it's stated that the technology has been invented in secret and kept quiet (e.g., The Stepford Wives). That's not what this article, as titled and described, is intended to be. JJL (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - a simple reason for keeping this list at least temporarily is that it is currently substantially qualitatively better to and supplementary to other lists on similar subjects, particularly the supposed list of science fiction films which is currently only half finished. An alphabetical list of science fiction films is particularly useful, and once this article is gone Wikipedia will not have such a list. Lucien86 (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per WP:Listcruft, would be best as a category, if a determination can be made as to qualifiers and differences between "future history", "alternate history", "alternate future history", "future fantasy", "time travel" (could go both ways), etc. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I also can't endorse the replacement of this by a category because that wouldn't remedy the existing problems that it is indiscriminately broad and so nebulously defined as the amount to original research. Existing genre categories/lists are better for this purpose. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete; the distinction is subjective. As pointed out above, there are already a large number of films on it that explicitly don't take place in the future (such as Brazil, which Gilliam has stated takes place in essentially the same world as Nineteen Eighty-Four, which would not be the future from Gilliam's point of view) or aren't explicit. Compiling those along with movies that explicitly do take place in the future, like 2001, is a subjective, debatable proposition. At best it's original research, at worst it's somewhat inaccurate. Chick Bowen 05:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per Chick Bowen. e.g. There are big problems with the list, for example Star Wars movies start with the phrase "A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away", yet they appear in the list with the foot-note "Feature futuristic depictions, but are set in the past or present". So the list isn't depictions of the future, it is futuristic ones, which is even woollier. Jll (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per my own previous concerns. DS (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep It's not a terribly useful list at the moment, but it has the potential to be. The discriminating information-- year that the film was made-- is fairly pointless. Essentially, there are two types of "films depicting the future"-- old films that depicted a time that is now in the past (i.e., Escape From New York, the 1981 film that showed what 1997 would be like, or 2001:A Space Odyssey) and old films that depict a time that is still in the future now, such as Planet of the Apes. I agree that it's a sign of poor maintenance that Dune or Star Wars are on here. Mandsford (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - violates no policies or guidelines. If it contains films that are not actually set in the future per reliable sources, including the film itself, then remove them. I see nothing in the concerns expressed by the deletionists that can't be fixed through normal editing. For example, films like The Happening (2008 film) can go in a section of the list with other films with a similar "X months later" segment. Inclusion or exclusion of any film can be discussed on the talk page, just like any other edit needing consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Unless there is published research about the depiction of the future in film. The fact that films depict the future is simply a characteristic of thse films. This article is no better than a hypothetical "List of films depicting 1968" or "List of films depicting young men who like cars" maxsch (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete per WP:LC items 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unidentified

    Unidentified (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Quite obscure film, doesn't seem to meet WP:MOVIE. It did receive a review at Variety, but that's it. —Chowbok ☠ 01:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. I wholly agree. I can't find anything on this anywhere except the review you mentioned, and it was difficult to even find that. miquonranger03 (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coren (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. WP:WING, notability. QuidProQuo23 01:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The Variety review alone satisifies film notability, and it's not the only source. Verifiability is the basis of Wikipedia, and this article provides that. 23skidoo (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, isn't it notability? Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but that's incorrect. WP:N is a "guideline" that depends on the policy WP:V ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability"). So we use WP:V to find WP:RS ("Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources.") in order to show WP:N ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic"). These items work together to establish WP:NF ("Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a film meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources."). User:23skidoo has it exactly correct. And the claims have been sunstantiated per the proper criteria. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirecting to a link at Identification could also be an option, not sure which one, though. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Your suggestion that the film "Unidentified" be redirected to a disambiguation page for the word "Identification" confuses me. Can you explain your reasoning? And further, with the multiple reviews, and coverage in multiple independent sources, WP:NF has definitely most been established per WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS. Since you feel differently, please, tell me specifically what you think is not notable and it can be addressed. Is it that the film did not go to Caan? Is it that the film did not win an Oscar? Is it the fact that it is a Christian film and has a smaller viewer base than Ghost Busters? What more do you feel it requires? Please. Tell me so it might be addressed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it meets any of the five numbered attributes listed in WP:NF#General principles. Aside from the Variety review, all of the external links posted are trivial (please note that the New York Times link is just a reprint of the All Movie Guide review).—Chowbok ☠ 21:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With respects, that is an incorrect interpretation of that section of WP:NF. The sentence that preceeds those 5 attibutes is "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist.." It is a statement and list that only seeks to indicate that if these attributes are present, then reliable sources are likely to exist... as an encouragement to editors to seek out those sources. It does not say these attributes must exist, only that if they do, then an editor will likely find reliable sources. And please, and with greater respects, I do not think any Christian review of a Christian film is 'trivial", and I included a number of them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax seicer | talk | contribs 02:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FUSE Radio

    AfDs for this article:
    FUSE Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article found to be a hoax, for reasons set forth below azumanga (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Opening remarks: I have nominated this article for deletion, due to it being a hoax for the following reasons:

    • It was mentioned that Cox Communications bought FUSE Radio in 2005, after it bought a Norfolk, Virginia station on "105.8". First, due to FCC regulations, cable companies cannot own terrestrial radio or TV stations in areas where they have cable systems. Cox owns several cable systems in the Hampton Roads area, including Norfolk. Also, there could not be a 105.8 FM in the US -- FM radio standards in North America allow only odd FM radio frequencies (105.7 or 105.9, but not 105.8); also, there's already an FM station on 105.7 -- WRSF.
    • FUSE Radio also mentions an alliance with TiVo -- TiVo is strictly a television service.
    • Links for The Washington Post go to wapost.com, instead of washingtonpost.com. The wapost.com address go to an advertising site, unrelated to The Washington Post. The Virginian Pilot reference is also false.

    For these reasons I declare this article false. -- azumanga (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax seicer | talk | contribs 02:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FUSE Radio Networks, INC

    AfDs for this article:
    FUSE Radio Networks, INC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article found to be a hoax, for reasons set forth below azumanga (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Opening remarks: I have nominated this article for deletion, due to it being a hoax for the following reasons:[reply]

    • It was mentioned that Cox Communications bought FUSE Radio in 2005. Due to FCC regulations, cable companies cannot own terrestrial radio or TV stations in areas where they have cable systems. Cox owns several cable systems in the Hampton Roads area, including Norfolk.
    • Links for The Washington Post go to wapost.com, instead of washingtonpost.com. The wapost.com address go to an advertising site, unrelated to The Washington Post. The Virginian Pilot reference is also false.

    For these reasons I declare this article false. -- azumanga (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete - Per the reasons raised by Azumanga above. - NeutralHomer • Talk 03:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I don't call a full blown hoax here, as they seem to exist, but they don't seem to have a documentable history. A whois record indicates the domain name came to life on June 11 of this year, which leads me to believe that the history is hoaxalicious. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coren (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Creative Laser Media

    Creative Laser Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not notable (WP:COMPANY), a quick google search produces plenty of online directories, but no sources establishing notability. Moreover, the editor name matches a company employee: Christopher Robertson = mrchrisr (talk · contribs), i.e. a conflict of interest. The little text that is in the article sounds like an advertisement. Han-Kwang (t) 14:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    delete: Nothing to suggest notability. User has been putting promotional links to this in articles, so I think the COI concerns may be justified. Papa November (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Look iam sorry , iam new to this. i was not done with the article maybe you should not be so hasty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrchrisr (talk • contribs) 08:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete in its current form the article serves only to promote the company. Although perhaps unintentional it still meets the relevant CSD criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_7&oldid=236961729"