Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 11: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:37, 11 October 2008

< October 10	October 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville NOiR

Indie record label. Weak assertion of notability but no evidence thereof. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Dismas|^(talk) 03:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for economic survival

Fails WP:ORG - no references in secondary sources Philip Trueman (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment their site seems to have a bunch of what appear to be reliable sources (such as Tme magazine). If these are legit, sourcing should be possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have made myself clearer. I'm not suggesting that it isn't mentioned at all, but that what mentions there are fail "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." In every reference I've seen so far, the coverage is of something else, and reference to this organisation is incidental - it's always one among several people or organisations quoted on whatever the actual subject of the reference is about. I don't see that that can be enough to establish notability. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but come on... Google News has over 300 articles at least mentioning the group, and it brings nearly 200 Google books hits as well. If even 1% of those constitute non-trivial coverage, that would be enogh for an article. It seems fundamentally illogical that something could attract that much mainstream media attention and still be non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if there were even a few press articles about the organisation itself, rather than just mentioning it in passing, wouldn't you expect them to be highlighted on the organisation's site? I've formed the impression of a fundamentally non-notable organisation, one among many other fundamentally non-notable organisations, desperate to raise its profile by getting itself mentioned as often as possible. Let's not confuse quantity with quality. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of sources that may make the organization more notable. One is testimoney given by Larry Gross to a House of Representatives Sub Committee(http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/070103lg.pdf). The other is an LA Times article from 1986 that discusses the work done by CES (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/58565413.html?dids=58565413:58565413&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+30%2C+1986&author=STEPHEN+BRAUN&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+). The LA Times article is archived, but the abstract is free. --Renor321 (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was really hoping that these would be good enough - it's always better to rescue an article than delete it. But the headline in the LA Times abstract calling CES a "Fringe Group" does not help, and the testimony by Larry Gross, while unimpeachable as a source, does not really cover CES - what it tells us that the issues that concern CES concern legislators enough to hear Gross' views. Giving evidence before a such a committee once wouldn't (IMHO) be enough to establish notability for Gross, and I don't see that it establishes notability for CES. Given that "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered", I don't see that notability has been established. If CES were a national organisation, then certainly, but as it is, no. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The full LA Times article discusses the rise of CES from fringe group to West Hollywood power broker. I have a PDF scan of the original if that helps. Further, the longevity of the organization, the pivotal role it played in the formation of the city of West Hollywood and the continuing activities of the organization within Los Angeles, should, in my opinion, establish some notability for CES. --Renor321 (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This 1500-word article in the LA Times is largely about this group and one other. this one says "Coalition for Economic Survival endorsement is crucial in a city where most people rent and a third are senior citizens" when discussing an election. They're just a couple that I picked out from the first 10 of over 300 google News hits. Looking at the 96 Google Books hits I find within a few minutes all of these sources that devote at leaset a paragraph or two each to the organisation and refer to its importance. That's more than enough to show notability (especially taken along with Renor's LA Times find) in just a few minutes of searching. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger and his finds.--chaser - t 02:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Google search of ""Coalition for economic survival" site:.gov", 17 unique results [1] shows the organization as a party in state and federal legal venues. Novickas (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure), because high schools are considered notable on Wikipedia. Okay, everyone, class dismissed! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waccamaw High School

There are no notable pieces of info in the article. It is mainly a list of the staff. Clubmarx (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Secondary public schools are generally considered automatically notable, although the article certainly needs cleanup. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now chopped the listcruft and reduced the article to a bare-bones stub pending actual sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do think cases should be examined on an individual basis, but high school articles like this one would be better served with proper expansion and references rather than deletion. --Jh12 (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOT#STATS. I don't seen anything in this article besides some statistics about a high-school. VG ☎ 13:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is this any different from the dozens or hundreds of other high schools that have been kept at AFD? As a high school, this is notable, and as such should be kept. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not buy the argument high-school = automatically notable. Do you really want me to list all the high-schools from Romania as WP:POINT? I can easily get a list of them, and probably enrollment numbers as well, but that won't make an article anyone would want to read (except high-school stats fans). Also, Wikipedia:SCHOOL is a failed guideline, and consensus can change. VG ☎ 15:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I don't really buy it either, but past AfDs suggest there is a strong consensus that public secondary schools are all notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as with other high schools enough sources are available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being badly written is not a reason for deletion. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veepu

Album by a non-notable musician whose article was speedily deleted and protected to prevent recreation. It doesn't even have an official release, it's on the web. The article is written by the album's subject, so conflict of interest is present. This probably should be speedied, but albums aren't eligible for that.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable unreleased, self released album by non-notable artist, with a dose of WP:COI on top. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable unreleased self released album by a non-notable artist that will be released on the web and the article has a conflict of interest. Schuym1 (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, fails WP:NALBUMS. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. kur ykh 07:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wingard

Notability in question: I don't think making several short films and having two web interviews automatically makes a person notable. Clubmarx (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have done a bit of cleanup. Will look to expand and source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be demonstrated that he has won awards or otherwise attracted attention in independent, reliable sources. If it is kept, a move is needed to a proper name. B.Wind (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found and added to article... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Borderline, but just slides under the notability wire for me. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 14:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus; default to keep - this article has been floating around AfD for quite some time (at least 15 days) and has been relisted 3 times. I think its time to close this discussion. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Fables

No sources found. Unsourced since 12/07. No notability asserted besides a long run in Grand Rapids. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I found [2] which takes about their trademark, this article [3] that talks about the breakup, many, many references in passing, and dozens of people trying to locate their old recipes. While I can't find a dead-on source, I get the feeling that this was an insanely popular chain that went of biz for some reason or another. I hate to see the article go without more confidence that they are really not notable (not the nom's fault). It went out of business before the Internet became popular, which may explain why sources are hard to find, excepting the fans of the food looking for the recipes and such. This is just one of those articles that I feel there IS something missing, and we just dont have easy access to the information, thus I will just stay neutral after searching. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up After searching Google news using all dates for "Mr. Fables" food I found some weak references that might pan out if I felt like spending money to see. NewsPaperArchive.com claims to have 32 articles for instance. Being verifiable only by pay ads should never stop an article from being considered sourced (policy doesn't say sourced for free) BUT I can't say that there are solid wp:rs behind that pay wall. I would lean more toward keep on faith, but I can't image sourcing this now out of business company will be easier in the future. Again, my gut says they ARE notable enough but they were preinternet, and I can't figure out how to satisfy policy in this. I tried, but have to stay neutral. Thats a lot of work to not take a stand... PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 07:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's going to be a little harder to find cites on articles like these because the chain went under in the previous decade, when there wasn't as much internet coverage, but this shouldn't make it impossible to find sources, and it doesn't make it non-notable. Fumoses (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O+K Research

I speedied this as an A7 but the creator contacted me to point out some sources. Most are in Russian so I am listing here as the benefit of the doubt. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about withdraw of speedy delete What exactly is the CLAIM of notability in the article? I assume that is why you tagged it, but I still don't see a valid claim, thus would still be speedy delete material. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just bringing it here to get a more binding decision. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the claim: those have a funny way of being taken for blatant advertising or PR work on someone's part. We in wiki have a list of market research firms by country, do we not? The british and american lists are quite huge, but the rest of the world is sorely lacking. The claim is simple: either major players in major countries should have articles and be on the list, or the list ought to get binned as well. This seems to be a step towards addressing the issue. Or do we seriously not consider it strange that only ***all of 9 countries*** have their own market research firms (and the Hong Kong one is a regional office of a Dutch-American company anyway)?! Oh, and dear exclusionists, if you are going to go on about it not being nearly as huge as something like Nielsen - I implore you to join the "Let's delete Andorra" club. Aadieu (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Even if you overlooked the blatant WP:COI problems (check the name of the article's author against the name of the company's Moscow director), the WP:RS and WP:V situation cannot be ignored. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability claims. --Blowdart | ^talk 04:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect to already-mentioned target. Didn't need afd. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pee wee's playhouse christmas special

There's already an article with this in the main "Pee Wee's Playhouse" page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pee-wee%27s_Playhouse_Christmas_Special#Prime-Time_Special:_1988 WadeSimMiser (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cerebral cortex. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lamina multiformis

One-liner about a human physiology topic that is already fully covered by another article (Cerebral cortex). Content is for all intents and purposes merged. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect as below Kinda sounds like a DICDEF to me. Unless someone has an idea of how this is going to be expanded, I would have to say ~~delete~~ redirect as stated below. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect appropriate here. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if it is covered in another article, as it is a plausible title for search and linking. --Itub (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect—RJH (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vato

Blatant advertisement; suspect COI/autobiography -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not the best written article, but he has been on multiple episodes of two different TV shows, including MAD-TV, and has a published role in an movie soon to be released, plus has had minor roles in other shows. There is a lot of talk about him, just not so much in mainstream journals. Actually, just deleting the Trivia section would make it a decent article. There aren't any peacock terms, and the article is written fairly dry. That doesn't really matter, as content can be changed anyway. As for notability, I think he likely gets in just under the wire. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Sorry but this is pretty much exploiting Wikipedia's Search Engine Optimization capabilities for the person's benefit, hence WP:SPAM. Article can be rewritten when it's not in a blatant advertising of a tone. MuZemike (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's what I thought, but CSD had already been declined. I believe that was the wrong decision, but hey...I'm not among those who make those decisions, hence the AfD. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11). Textbook case. VG ☎ 13:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.- 68.183.55.64 (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Russell (artist)

Blatant advertisement; suspect COI violation; not notable -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' He *might* be notable, however, the current article would have to be completely rewritten without all the peacock terms. As it is, yes, it appears like it is written by him or a lacky, is an advert, and is as unencyclopedic as they get. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both - only assertion of notability is perhaps the novel. Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE, PAGE CORRECTED The language on the page has been changed to include only quotes from published articles and facts. Please review the article now and remove this warning. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crvenka (talk • contribs) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC) — Crvenka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Just because quotes are included doesn't mean the subject is notable or that it's not a blatant advertisement. None of the issues specified have been addressed. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best would require complete rewrite, assuming there's any notability there at all. Matt Deres (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above....Modernist (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Any Cost

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced plot summary. B.Wind (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As per the usual custom, the recommendations of very new and unregistered users are given less weight. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hshieh

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

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

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

Non-notable biography J3ff (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make stub continue to add references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkripto (talk contribs) 23:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Kkripto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note to closing editor: Above account created on date of its first edit to this article. Bongomatic (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to stub, since awards received are significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.119.49 (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 128.12.119.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete as it looks like a resume at this time, and individual isn't notable yet. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete resume like Clubmarx (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Put this on LinkedIn. JFW | T@lk 22:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stub add more verification/expand-- added by Ecotti

— Ecotti (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note to closing editor: Above account created on date of its first edit to this article. Bongomatic (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Information can be verified-- erikasarkosi | talk 23:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Erikasarkosi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note to closing editor: Above account created on date of its first edit to this article. Bongomatic (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hshieh is an influential lecturer at Harvard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.120.48 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 128.12.120.48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. I have attended a few of Hshieh's lectures at Harvard. Given his contributions to 3D imaging, especially in cancer detection, I am surprised that this article is up for deletion. Most of his work is published in closed journals, but I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to add more references to this entry. Themonthcomes (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Themonthcomes (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note to closing editor: Above account created on date of its first edit to this article. Bongomatic (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough info to justify an article. -Nard 02:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable researcher/academic. Fails WP:PROF in a blink. VG ☎ 12:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:PROF - not notable even if clearly very bright. Why are we being told a Stanford University freshman is an 'influential Harvard lecturer'? Even his CV doesn't make that claim. Large numbers of students can claim similar awards. And of course a clear campaign here by brand new editors. Doug Weller (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our standards for academics make full professors usually be notable, but to make a freshman be notable we would need extremely persuasive evidence which is not to be found here. No publications in refereed journals have been listed, and we don't see any reliable sources commenting on his work. Wikipedia does not have articles on any of the awards he is said to have received. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from everything else (he's clearly nonnotable), if "most of his work is published in closed journals", that doesn't help his notability at all. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here seems to reach notability standards—G716 <^T·_C> 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely nonnotable, and wikipedia is no place to post ones resume. Themfromspace (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT, WP:NOTE, WP:NOTWEBHOST Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 15:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Alan Skinner

Fails notability since June 2007. Orphan as well. Magioladitis (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His book The Origin of Medical Terms seems notable and well respected, 75 gscholar cites. According to the Booklist and Library Journal reviews at Amazon, of the book by Haubrich that I added to the refs, Haubrich's 1984, revised 2003 book is an "update" of Skinner's, but Skinner's "is still a better source." (orig pub 1949, revised in '61 and '70) I added some snippets of biographical data to the article.John Z (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the above information. He's verifiable and at least slightly notable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 75 gscholar hist for a guy who worked long before the Internet age is pretty impressive. --Crusio (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand. Notability presently not asserted. We don't have articles on most anatomy professors. JFW | T@lk 14:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the info found by John Z. Edward321 (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Us Against the World (Christina Milian song)

Fails WP:NM; non-notable song that has yet to chart. I originally redirected the article to Christina Milian but another user feels it is notable, so I brought it here DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 20:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know the song isn't very notable yet, so I wouldn't mind a redirect. However, I have added a reference and the article will gain notability over the next few weeks. So I say keep. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is, if it charts. But keeping the article because it may chart is crystal balling. And even with the current references, the song is still not notable per WP:NM. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 03:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well I am really neutral with this AfD. If several other users want to delete it, then I say redirect. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I Was a Drinkin' Man

I have tried several times to redirect this song, only for one user to singlehandedly undo all my redirects and disagree with me entirely just because their opinion clashes with mine. This article has been in this state for ages now, with absolutely no sources found. Yes, it was a #16 chart single, but not all chart singles are inherently notable. The ASCAP award is unsourced, as is the claim that it was favorable among recovering alcoholics. Given that there is no hope of expansion for this article, I think that it should either be deleted or redirected, but since I've already tried to redirect it and tried to discuss this with the user to no avail… Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It turns out that Wikibones disagreed with the redirection since Charlie Floyd also recorded the song, and felt that a redirect to Neal was inappropriate. Note, however, that Charlie Floyd didn't release his version as a single, and may not even meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails the verifiability policy anyway, by having no sources at all. If source for chart position found, redirect to the artist who recorded that version. Did the other artist write it? If so he can be mentioned in the sucessful artists page. If not, then it is just a non-notable cover by him.Yobmod (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As redirect is causing edit warring, better to delete it as a non-notable song (minor chart position is not enough by itself), and let the 2 artists' pages treat its existance on their pages seperately.Yobmod (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TenPoundHammer. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure).-- Magioladitis (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lokiec

Fails notability since June 2007. Article is orphan as well. Prod removed since a reference to the NYT implies that "he deserves an AfD at least" :) Magioladitis (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, in addition to the NYT review, there are several other sources listed here. Of the ones available online, only the NYT seems to provide substantial coverage of Lokiec, however. Overall, just enough to scrape by the notability requirements, I think. Jfire (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest possible keep. I'm not so sure about the bibliography on his gallery's website. They could just be simple listings. The NYT review is decidedly mixed, and five years old. But one old NYT review, however ambivalent, is just about enough to err on the side of keep.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one mention in the NYT doesn't make you encyclopedia-worthy. Clubmarx (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep Seems to have a decent amount of coverage, close to 2500 google hits (and yes I'm still keeping in mind WP:GOOGLE). That with the NYTimes also has me err on the side of "keep". --Banime (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After the new expansion I'm going to upgrade to full on keep. --Banime (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the above comments, I've expanded the article and added references. Some of these are short mentions of him, but there is a consistency over five years and he gets mentioned above the run-of-the-mill in international coverage. Ty 07:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Young artist with impressive attention, from not only the New York Times, seems worthwhile....Modernist (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw The article established notability. A great thanks Tyrenius for his effort to improve the article significantly. I hope my withdraw don't prevent editor from keep improving the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Pelekanos

At first glance this is essentially a vanity article about an unsuccessful competitor on a TV reality show. I thought about CSD(A7), but the article does make a weak assertion of notability, and according to a Google search she has some exposure. Whether enough to meet WP:BIO, however... I have my doubts. EyeSerene^talk 20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a contestant on a reality show doesn't mean that deserves an article. Clubmarx (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clubmarx. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that the article has no references, and exists mainly to promote her web site, CSD#G11 would have been appropriate. VG ☎ 13:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it did cross my mind, but I haven't been an AfD regular for a while and am unsure about current interpretation of the criteria. Next time... ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTE,WP:V,WP:REF Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Renaciendo. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digale

Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible search term to the album Renaciendo, fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled CKY album

WP:HAMMER applies? Contested Prod QuiteUnusual (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you know why. JuJube (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hammer time Clubmarx (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Get out the parachute pants, it's Hammertime. Nate • (chatter) 01:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with Maxwell's Silver Hammer. B.Wind (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smash with a crystal hammer covered with snow. MuZemike (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources. We66er (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and as original prodder. Tavix (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of centenarians

A list that's just getting bigger and bigger. As living to be 100 becomes more and more common, this age bracket becomes less notable. Georgia guy (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets all of the criteria of WP:LIST and WP:SAL, aside from the fact that we're still in the process of making all the proper citations and thus there is the potential that some names may be removed in the future when we realize that they do not meet the criteria. If this list is too long, then splitting it into several smaller lists and the method for which to do that can be discussed at the talk page, as it frequented by many active editors. AfD, however, is not an appropriate venue for this. Cheers, CP 20:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But how should the articles for the smaller lists be titled?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's something to discuss on a talk page, not an AFD. It could be alphabetically (ie. List of Centenarians A-F) as I believe there is precedent to do, or it could be by occupation, by country etc. etc. List of centenarians could then become Lists of centenarians and link to all the smaller ones.Cheers, CP 20:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the To-Do list on the talk page and go to #5. It is very hard, and there is probably no choice. Georgia guy (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This list is longer than Longcat, but it is fairly easy to source and it has a clear cut criterion, so I think it meets WP:LIST. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with above. Informations in this article are easy to find. Article groups people who have common characteristic - long life and that's fair enough. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 21:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The people have nothing in common. There is nothing unique about being a certain age. Ditto for List of octogenarians and List of nonogenarians. Edison (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violating WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE- according to the centenarian article, there are 85,000 living centenarians in either the U.S. or Japan. Good luck on listing them... and the ones who don't live in either country. B.Wind (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike lists of supercentenarians, this has a ridiculously huge number of people who could fit: should I list my great-great-uncle, since I know there was something in his local paper some time back when he turned 100 a few months before his death? Assuming that the number in the article mentioned by B.Wind is correct, an article under this title could reasonably be ten times longer than a List of Nauruans would be. I understand that the list is strictly for people known for being something other than age 100, but still this would be treated better as a category. Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but redefine who is is notable enough to be Included on the list or divide list into different topics (i.e. notable centenarians from 19th century , a list of living notable centenarians, etc. etc.). --Thomas (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some users that appear to favour deletion seem to be unaware that age is not the sole criteria for inclusion, if someone is not notable enough to have an article before they turn 100 then turning 100 does not make them sufficiently notable to deserve a page or inclusion on the list. The list needs to be split, discussion of how should go on its talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If wiki-notability is a criterion for inclusion, then a catergory would do that authomatically. Better as a cat, with the references put on the subjects pages (so no hard work lost!).Yobmod (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify, this list is more discriminating than simple wiki-notability - it excludes any individuals (as determined by consensus on the talk page) who are not notable for anything other than attaining old age. One rough way we decide this, for example, is asking "if this person did what they did 40 years ago, then died, would they still be notable enough for Wikipedia?" It's a bit subjective, but it's cemented by consensus and it explains why we don't have war veterans, the oldest people, living supercentenarians or "the oldest guy to become an American citizen" etc. on the list. Some cases are contentious and arguable, but generally we're pretty good at reaching a consensus. Cheers, CP 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The quality of notability is seriously diminished by the quantity of folks living beyond 99. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The people listed are notable people, before they became centenarians. Becoming 100 is still a landmark age, and I do not feel that the list is too long as the cases are kept in concise tables, with links to relevant articles. SiameseTurtle (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might want to rename the article List of notable centenarians or something similar, to make it obvious that just being a centenarian is not the criterion for inclusion. - Morinao (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is assumed that members of a list like "Centenarians" are notable, and adding that word to the title is discouraged, per Wikipedia:Lists#List naming. Edison (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary list. See WP:LC items 1, 7, and 10. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spielraum

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

WP:DICDEF BJ^Talk 07:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:OMGWTFBBQ. Protonk (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - sorry but i really can not find where anyone is arguing why the articel should be deleted?

I think it is a very interesting concept that has been used by me and others and adds value to the english language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxSenges (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What BJ and Stifle are trying to say is that this article belongs in a dictionary (such as Wiktionary) rather than in an encyclopedia, because it is defining a word rather than describing a concept. It would have been much more helpful if they had said it in English, as Protonk points out. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At most its a dictionary definition, no good sources saying its anything else --Banime (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a dictionary def in German of something we don't have an article on in English. I would translate it as "wiggle-room", so it is not that English does not have this concept, there is just nothing to write an article about, apart from the definition.Yobmod (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Vision: An American Anthem

There is pretty much no reliable sourcing on which a verifiable article about this (one time) future TV series could be based. The two sources available from Forbes [4] and The New York Times [5] give very little (if any) information about the proposed show itself but briefly talk about a possible law suit that it could have caused. A Google search yields less than 50 results [6],[7] with no additional reliable sources. Neither the NBC [8] nor the Eurovision Song Contest [9] websites contain any mention of the show. Unless more reliable sourcing is shown to be available I don't think it will be possible to write an article which meets two of Wikipedia's core inclusion criteria, verifiability and no original research. Guest9999 (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete EBU has confirmed problems with launch of this show at Belgrade press-conference. It may never be released.Zaqqq (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Lewis structures in 3-D

The diagrams on this page are a novel and misleading representations of molecular bonding. Therefore, they constitute original research. The text on the page is in a non-encyclopedic and unprofessional style. The page has been dicussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry and there is a broad consensus against this article. Cacycle (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These are novel (and IMO confusing) representations of bonding, and therefore constitute original research. Yilloslime (t) 20:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. The conclusion from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry looks correct to me. QuiteUnusual (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR (actually, substantially misleading and/or factually-incorrect OR) per my comments on page noted by Cacycle. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this seems to be original research, and not particularly useful original research at that. I've always been quite comfortable with most chemical structure methods and I found this one confusing and somewhat misleading. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR and misleading. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (userfy?) as material that is probably interesting and relevant somewhere but doesn't by itself form an encyclopedic article. JJL (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Departs significantly from the way Lewis structures are presented in textbooks and therefore constitutes original research. --Itub (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything in the article is misleading. I also don't like how ribonucleotides are labeled "A-DNA" and "T-DNA". Narayanese (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Woods

Non-notable independent film in production. No reliable sources to show notability, all articles about the film simply quote the same promotional copy. gnfnrf (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete give indie filmmakers a chance! don't delete this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.18.201 (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. With respects to the unsigned IP, we love good indi flicks here on Wiki... as long as they get good press and begin ffilming. When the film shows some notability that can be sourced, it will be welcomed back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CLC Philippines Formation Institute

Notability not established through reliable sources. Wizardman 02:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Philippines only Google search does not give independent coverage. Strongest hit that I got is some sort of announcement from Ateneo University.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 07:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 06:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A double relist for something I'm now sure is non-notable? heh, if you say so. Wizardman 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article that has been orphaned for two years - and orphaned articles are usually orphaned for a reason. No real demonstration of notability per WP:CORP. No reliable sources for WP:V. It's been about 16 months since the sourcing and notability tags were applied... It's time to put it out of its misery. B.Wind (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability neither established nor even asserted. Springnuts (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius characters. MBisanz ^talk 06:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Jimmy

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge intro (without Nicholson OR) into List of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius characters, where he is not listed yet. Reasoning per nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Sgeureka. JuJube (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect No sources discuss the subject. Very little critical commentary of the show. Third party coverage of the show doesn't magically filter down to characters without...actual coverage. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hong Kong Singers

Questionable notability with no verified media coverage at all.

Keep Ok, despite it is a poorly written article, I changed my mind after I found out it is sponsored by PricewaterhouseCoopers and interviewed by the RTHK. I think we should improve it instead of delete it. --Da Vynci (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Grapes

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

Fails WP:NM, non-notable person that asserts no notability and has no substantial third-party coverage DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 21:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you not like about the article. He is a relevant person, he is known around the Bay Area. There is plenty of sources to back up all the statements in the article. I have put links on there that back up these statements. I do not understand why it is proposed for deletion.

Sources: http://www.nbc11.com/newsarchive/16279733/detail.html http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=236320115

Nate Grapes and Nathaniel Curtis Freeman are the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnmhorn (talk • contribs) 21:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.

--Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read WP:RS. MySpace and YouTube are not reliable sources, as well as the other sources you've listed. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 03:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Even if reliable sources were found for the claims, local notability does not equate with wikipedia-notability.Yobmod (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think NBC is. He is very well known.Why would you delete the whole article when there are news articles to prove the statements in the article. I have many many articles that would back the fact that he is a murderer but only CD covers and others for his rapping. I have his music and things along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.195.42 (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falls short of the WP:MUSIC notability bar. His being charged with a murder that has received only local mention doesn't make up the difference. The article itself makes only a weak assertion of notability - this must be changed if the article is to survive. B.Wind (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you guys help me find more sources then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.195.156 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question Where is the article link? How are people checking the sources without it? I'm ocnfused!Yobmod (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fueled by Ramen. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 11:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Janick

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

No evidence of notability, the reference is a press release Doug Weller (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fueled by Ramen. No other claims to notability. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no claim of notability in the article Clubmarx (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Caknuck. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No claim to notability. Only source is primary, which shows nothing about notability.Yobmod (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Essendon District Football League. The content is there for anyone wishing to merge, and the target of the redirect can be changed too. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenroy Football Club

This is an article about an amateur football club that presents no evidence of notability. Grahame (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of 24 clubs in the Essendon District Football League, most with WP articles. Knocking off one article seems ineffective. WWGB (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable amateur club with no claims to notability. Retaining because other clubs have articles sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unless they have other grounds for notability (and it's hard to imagine at this playing level), they could rate a mention as part of the league article but otherwise deleted. Murtoa (talk) 23:27, 29 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) 00:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Essendon District Football League and Glenroy, Victoria where it can be expanded until there are sufficient reliable sources to justify an independent article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete this, and merge apporpriate info into the leage article, per above.Yobmod (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If content is merged, we generally leave a redirect to preserve author history as required by GFDL. Redirects are also cheap, useful to the reader to show where content is, and prevents another article being started from scratch at the same location. DoubleBlue (Talk) 11:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to album. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Chick

Non-notable song, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per that guideline. AFD not needed. --Rividian (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is probably the way to go, per Rividian and WP:MUSIC#SONGS. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Baller Blockin' Soundtrack. Schuym1 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sherston Software. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furbles

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

Non-notable software. BJ^Talk 03:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sherston Software. Only 2 sources I can find[10][11], and I don't think there is enough notability, or information published in reliable sources, for a separate article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as that term isn't likely to be used for other articles, but topic isn't strong enough to warrant its own article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Snigbrook. Mvjs Talking 03:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. Russell Murphy

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

Not notable. Fails V RS BIO ATHLETE and NOTABILITY. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look at all the stuff on the Google News and Books list! ~~By the way, please don't just create the AfD discussion, can you also place the standard header on the article page so that others will know that the article is in AfD?~~ (done thanks)--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does this mean the AfD deadline is Oct 9 or Oct 11? I've been made aware of more potential info but need to verify it. Would like the deadline to be from the date of the proper listing, not the date of the incomplete listing. Fair enough?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Coverage is limited to mentions of his name and proof that he exists. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, does not appear to meet WP:BIO at present. RFerreira (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N. An article in the NYT about a 1923 football coach is pretty good. Other sources listed in article seem acceptable. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep, This article needs a lot of work. I do agree with Stifle. A lot of the sources seem to prove that he exists and that about it, but there is multiple, so I willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. I would not be opposed to merging this info into a list of Dickerson football coaches. 09er (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, such a merge might make sense. Hobit (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with a Dickerson football coaches article, as per 09er. [witty comment about the UK understanding of college football redacted] --Bobak (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, I see a NYT mention, but that's the same sort of trivial mention that takes place in sports pages nationwide on a daily basis. There is still no substantial, reliable, in depth coverage presented to us. Ravenswing 21:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that the subject would be considered notable, if he existed today. Of course, give the time gap, many reliable sources (i.e. newspaper articles) would not be published online. However, there are some, and previous consensus has ruled that notability is not temporary. Fraud ^{talk to me} 20:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is indeed not temporary, and if you can provide evidence of his notability, feel free. Suggesting that he might have been notable had he existed today is pure speculation ... and heck, it isn't as if the current coach of Dickenson College is notable, or that low-level college football referees are. Ravenswing 00:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, such "comparisons" tend to be invalid. Note that Yale and University of Chicago had football teams that dominated college football over a century ago, but the former's current coach would barely get regional coverage today (as they are Division I FCS) and the latter's would get virtually none (as they are now Division III football). Dickinson College competes on the Division III level today. B.Wind (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Murphy also served as basketball coach for at least two other colleges and seems to have written a notable book. The problem here is that any real verification must be done with old, offline, sources. As it stands right now, the article merely hints at his notability, but there's enough there to merit more time for expansion and sources (I've duly tagged it for expansion). B.Wind (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to coaching, notable for writing and for early involvement wtih rules commitees. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemount Middle School

Per WP:SCHOOL: high schools stay, middle schools go. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. First, WP:SCHOOL is an essay, not a policy. Second, it is a hotly contested essay with no concensus, thus was abandoned. Third, in most situations like this, you simply redirect to the school district, in this case Independent School District 196. In my opinion, REDIRECT would be the solution. I have made the same mistake plenty of times, and have learned.... PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a Blue Ribbon School with plenty of sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I'd say merge to the school district as there's virtually no relevant, sourced information in the article even if the school is, theoretically, notable. If it's expanded and sourced as has been suggested, I have no problem with it being kept (or split out again in the future, if a merge occurs). ~ mazca ^t|c 20:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's been pretty well sourced now - still could use expansion, but there's enough verifiable info. Clearly a Keep. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the district - no article-worthy info is in the article Clubmarx (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough independent sources to establish notability. Mvjs Talking 00:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still believe Blue Ribbon Schools fulfill notability requirements, about the most standard form of notability currently available in the United States. --Jh12 (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted by Jhl2, there's plenty of precedent for Blue Ribbon Schools being considered notable. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article passes WP:N, so the discussion of school-specific retention criteria is moot. Plentiful reliable sources available for encyclopedic content, as a blue ribbon school. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Simpson (disambiguation)

This is a recently created disambiguation page for "Homer Simpson". Because only Homer Simpson exists, and not an article about an alternative Homer Simpson from The Simpsons episode "Homer to the Max", or the completely different Homer Simpson from the book/film The Day of the Locust, it was turned into a redirect to Homer Simpson, which mentions The Locust Homer, though not the "Homer to the Max" Homer. Everyone following? :) I then speedy deleted the page as WP:CSD#R3 "a redirect based on an implausible typo" after asking another Admin for their opinion. The creator asked me to restore it and take it to AfD, so here it is. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for a dab here when only one Homer has a page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough ambiguity to need disambiguation. There exists a hatnote at the top of the Homer Simpson page leading to the character Homer Simpson in The Day of the Locust already, and I am betting it isn't used much. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the other Homer Simpsons are far from significant enough to require this, given that neither has their own page. A hatnote is, if anything, more than enough. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already a hatnote linking to the Day of the Locust, and I doubt many people who search for "Homer Simpson" are looking for the one-off character that appears briefly in "Homer to the Max". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Gran² 06:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one article by this name, and other articles need no creation. Nothing ambiguous worth disambiguating. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since adequate navigational hatnote exists at Homer Simpson. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the page creator, and to be clear, I did ask Matthewedwards to run this through AfD, because it had a history of multiple questionable speedy taggings in the short time it existed. I have no problem following whatever the community consensus is here, and I suspect that it will be clear judging by the comments so far. I simply wanted it to get a clear community hearing. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for disambig page CTJF83Talk 19:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As is customary, the recommendations of new and unregistered users have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish E-Sports

Irish gaming clan. Supported by a couple of websites, but I wouldn't call them reliable independent sources, and I don't think the article demonstrates this group's notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~fails notability~~ no sufficiently reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn Clubmarx (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My definition of notability is Something worthy of note, so therefore being the largest and currently most competitivly successful online gaming clan in Ireland and independantly hosting over 10% of that countries online gaming servers is worthy of note. With first place finishes in 2 of the 3 big tournaments at the largest lan events held in Ireland this year and last Irish E Sports displays all the criteria to be of note in the gaming community Dixy79 (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Dixy79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep ~~By claiming not notable you're denying the existence of gaming in Ireland by removing a fore running group in Irish organised gaming~~ As the current most successful gaming organisation in the Rep. Ireland (and probably the largest), and one of the largest game server hosts within the country I think notability can be claimed on those grounds. PolarIce (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page has been protected from speedy deletion twice by Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and SoWhy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) within the last two weeks. See Talk:Irish_E-Sports --- PolarIce (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please note that denying speedy deletion (CSD #A7) does not create any notability nor does it mean the declining admin thinks that some exists. So Why 16:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Irish eSports are a massive part of the Irish Gaming community and are doing much to push it forward. They run the most popular and best servers in Ireland and also compete well competitively. By claiming not notable you're setting the scene back Oisinjm (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Oisinjm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete as failing WP:GROUP due to the absence of reliable sources to verify the claims of notability. I would remind Dixy79 and Oisinjm that any discussion of notability should be within the community definition, not their own personal ones and to Polar Ice I would point out that to avoid an A7 speedy deletion an article only needs to assert notability however in order to be kept long-term it must be shown to meet the specific community guidelines.Nancy ^talk 05:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of note in the gaming community might make it suitable for a game website. But at Wikipedia, there is a notability guideline that requires coverage in reliable third-party sources to be considered suitable for inclusion. Without such sources, the article cannot meet our standards. Randomran (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be much more notable than your average gaming clan but still, the only mentions of this group are on gaming websites of dubious notability. Icewedge (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: By deleting this page you are denying notability to gaming related topics in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark10101 (talk • contribs) _{(comment moved from talk page Nancy^talk} 10:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- — Dark10101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Organisations such as this cannot pass Wikipedia's definition of notability without evidence of multiple reliable sources. Gaming-related topics can and do have such evidence, so we're not denying notability to them in general — we're simply saying that this one isn't notable. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:Notability has a specialized meaning on Wikipedia. It's not notability in the dictionary sense, but rather something to the effect of "We don't have decent sources, therefore we can't write a decent (read:verifiable) article, therefore we shouldn't bother having an article". And that's pretty much the case here. Nifboy (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Irish eSports are the sole "good" team in the Irish Gaming community and have done a lot to spread its name, make appearances and generally be a sound bunch of lads. Their achievements speak for themselves and the best Counter Strike Source team in Ireland should have its own wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bontonfrink (talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Botonfrink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Irish eSports are the most notable Multi Gaming Organisation in Ireland and have the best CSS and COD4 teams in the country. As such I don't believe the page should not be deleted Shaneomad (talk 19:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Shaneomad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Why delete? Irish eSports is a growing community, it takes time. support IE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.214.132 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 82.45.214.132 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I believe this page should be kept so that Irish esports scene can develop into something big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Int000 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Int000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete — After looking and searching hard, there is a lack of reliable sources establishing the significant coverage needed in the WP:GNG. It is also noted that all reasons to keep as stated above are virtually WP:ITSNOTABLE claims that provide no verifiablity from reliable sources to back that up, while others are just obvious canvassing attempts from SPAs. MuZemike (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — (another edit conflict) Wikipedia's deletion policy states that These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy and that it is considered inappropriate to ask people outside of Wikipedia to come to the discussion in order to sway its outcome. Such comments may be ignored. MuZemike (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find sources that showed especial notability, they are just another clan. None of the keep !votes have made any claims that would make me think it was notable, so i suspect sources do not exist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs)

Comment: There are a lot of sources provided in the page. PolarIce (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: only one of these sources (independent.ie, for two cites) appears reliable under wiki guidelines, but it doesn't mention Irish E-Sports specifically (only Irish 'gamers' in general). That's why the article's subject doesn't appear notable, despite the 7 inline cites.--Boffob (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAre you going to dismiss the cite from GotFrag and Game-monitor as non reliable, both of which directly refer to aspects of the article? PolarIce (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're not providing significant coverage to Irish E-Sports in particular — just to the tournament and rankings, respectively. For those two articles I am not questioning their reliability as much as the providing of significant coverage. I don't see a mention in a Top 100 list as providing said coverage about the team, nor do I see a brief blurb of "Irish E-Sports placing third at Gamecon XII" as one, either. MuZemike (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz (video game)

Unreleased game annouced by Zoo Digital, however it has passed the listed release date and i cannot find that it has been released. the only link appears to be dead. A google search comes up with information less articles. GameSpot doesnt seem to have heard about it. Maybe it was planned but has been abandoned, but really it should be just deleted until some substantial evidence arrives, also Zoo Digital Publishing has no mention of it being an upcoming game. Salavat (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Salavat (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the existing SNES game of the same name. This newer version doesn't look to come out. Nate • (chatter) 18:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Restore The to the original game's title, definitely. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the existing article should be moved to this title. Zagalejo^^^ 18:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeh id have to agree, the proper title for the SNES game should be used. Salavat (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - Delete this unsourced and apparently unreleased game and move the SNES game here - according to the box, it should have its 'The' returned. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move SNES game, agree with above. --Banime (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and borderline A7. There's nothing here. Also, I know who the subject of this spam is directed towards, with all due respect to the reviewer in question. MuZemike (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They forgot to ask the Wizard for notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Troopergate (Bill Clinton). The BLP issues prevent a merge in this case (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Patterson

Unnotable state trooper. He made claims against a president and supports a conspiracy theory (Vince Foster). Article does not have a single source to show notablity. We66er (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Troopergate (Bill Clinton) if that article is kept via AfD; no sources here, but the details of this person can be merged within that narrative. Nate • (chatter) 18:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Troopergate (Bill Clinton), which is in the middle of a speedy keep. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is under review for BLP concerns at DRV. We66er (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. B.Wind (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some of the claims in this article should not be merged, as they violate WP:BLP against Bill and/or Hillary Clinton. *** Crotalus *** 15:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per WP:ONEEVENT. Everything worth keeping is already in the Troopergate article. A ni Mate 06:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, ~~bad faith nom.~~ NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troopergate (Bill Clinton)

Delete and redirect to Paula Jones. The only two sources in the body of the article say its a manufactured "controversy." There is not enough material nor controversy for an article. The court dismissed Jones' claims before the trial as noted on her article page.

Furthermore, the title is inappropriate since there is serious dispute whether the claims are truth. In contrast, with the the other media-dubbed Troopergate, an article titled Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal concluded Palin abused power, but the title is not "Troopergate". We66er (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep ~~Bad faith nomination~~; this event is more than notable and sourced and is not replaced by the current Alaska incident. Nate • (chatter) 18:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I take offense to the "bad faith" claim. The article is alleging a conspiracy of sexual behavior and has only two sources. That is 1) not notable and 2) not well-sourced. As for the second part of your sentence, what are you referring to? Replace what? I think you misread the nomination and critique of the title.
- Let's examine the content of the article:
- The first sentence of the article reads: "Troopergate is the popular name of an alleged scandal involving allegations by two Arkansas state troopers that they arranged sexual liaisons for then-governor Bill Clinton." An article based on allegations of two people who were paid thousands for their stories years after the alleged event (one later convicted of lying to the FBI), which contains TWO sources by people who say it was manufactured--not true isn't worthy of an article. At worse it is a violation of WP:BLP. We66er (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a notable event, and lord knows, the phrase was used on every damn cable TV news show, newspaper and radio talk show. To think this wasn't a notable event AND used this exact phrase requires a large amount of crack cocaine. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Psychonauts

This is a list of characters featured in only one single video game. The plot and character sections in the main article cover them in enough capacity to establish their role. The rest of the content is unnecessary plot summary and game guide material. TTN (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnessary detail for a single game, way to detailed, and resembles a game guide, so really doesnt belong here. Salavat (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this game is highly character driven (see quote below) as list of characters is key to understanding the game. As reasonable break out article it should be kept in any case as lists of characters for notable TV, movie, and games tends to be acceptable. This article is fairly poor, but need not be a game guide. [12], [13], and even things like [14] show the notability and importance of the characters. Hobit (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Cnet's review (linked to above) "The basic plot itself reads like typical platformer fodder, but there's a lot more to Psychonauts' story than can be summed up in a single paragraph. This is largely due to the game's bizarre cast of characters, of which there are many. Raz himself is a highly likable hero; he's cute, heroic, funny, and also a little awkward at times. He fits the bill of the overenthusiastic yet not-quite-ready hero to the letter and it's hard not to feel sympathetic to his plight. But beyond Raz, there's a great supporting cast, with roughly two dozen other characters who play parts both large and small in the story." It goes on. Hobit (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I wrote the most important characters needed to understand the plot in the body of the article way back. If this was a series, I'd argue differently, but... --MASEM 23:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question, does that merge then prohibit a delete result here due to the GFDL? (or an undo of the merge I guess then delete). Not trying to wiki-lawyer, just want to know. Hobit (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a merge, what I wrote in the characters was a restatement from the plot on the page, no content from the list page used, so no need to keep. Not that "List of characters in Psychonauts" isn't a usable search term. --MASEM 14:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much detail for one game. Relevant character information belongs in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We shouldn't be in the business of creating articles on the basis of brief mentions in reviews. We should be (and the GNG substantiates this) looking for coverage of the subjects themselves. If sources don't deign to cover the characters in Psychonauts, then it isn't our decision to cover them first. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did notice that one of the above sources covers many of the characters? I'm not certain it a RS, but certainly not OR or a case of us covering them first. Hobit (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not far. If, say, the Psychonauts wiki talks about the characters before we do it is still basically the case that wikipedia is assembling information first. I don't literally mean "someone is coming up with a new theory right now in the edit window" so much as I mean "reliable sources haven't covered it and we're making interpretation and selection choices where we should be offloading that decision on to others". If no one who has to make editorial decisions (meaning choose between stories or pay to publish a book) has decided the characters are worth covering, it isn't our job to jump the queue. That's what I mean. Protonk (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is a RS, would that be enough to move you to keep? I can try to figure out if it's self-published or not. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of characters in ... articles are a good idea generally. We shouldn't itend to have the detail of the specialized wki, but basic information here is appropriate & articles like this are the way to do it. All named characters with more than trivial roles should be included, not just the "main" ones--but that kind of dispute belongs on article talk pages, not here. The CNet review is highly relevant on this. DGG (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to renomination. Allow a couple weeks for the editors involved in the article to try and pull up some sources, if they can't/don't, relist. McJeff (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly in-universe, with not a single real source that I can see. All of this detail adds up it being a game guide. which is not Wikipedia's role. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as violating WP:NOT by going beyond a WP:CONCISEPLOT. No reliable third-party sources that offer significant critical out-of-universe information to support an article, thus failing WP:N. Randomran (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in addition to the sources above (one of which I will note has a (short) page for basically every character on this list), there is also a fair bit about the characters at [15]. Hobit (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without prejudice to the history: Most game articles really only need the one article to contain its plot. Two, depending on circumstances, is usually too much, especially for a single game. I'm not seeing anything in the sources provided in the Raz AfD that indicates this article can go above and beyond being a repeat of the plot summary. Nifboy (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not for rehashing of plot summaries. ~~Also lacks verifiable sources as already stated above.~~ MuZemike (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erb? You did look at the sources above yes? CNET (for example) is clearly reliable, and all are verifiable. Hobit (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no; I missed them. (I actually thought you were talking about in the article.) Consider the latter reason struck, but however I still think fails WP:NOT and will remain at delete. MuZemike (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Transwikied to StrategyWiki:Psychonauts/Characters. -- Prod (Talk) 05:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poor to no referencing and little or no notability established outside the context of the game itself. Already transwikied to the strategywiki, so the content isn't lost. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already transwikied to where it should be, and is almost nothing to merge, as there are no citations, so would be merging OR.Yobmod (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Legend of Legaia characters

This is a list of characters featured in only one single video game. The plot and character sections in the main article cover them in enough capacity to establish their role. The rest of the content is unnecessary plot summary and game guide material. TTN (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC) TTN (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way to detailed for a single game. Unnessary detail, way to in-game, not suitable for an encyclopedia. Salavat (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs help, but list-of-characters articles are general standard for such a game. CRPGs are generally about characters, and no article on them can be complete without some reasonable detail about the characters. Hobit (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strip down and merge to Legend of Legaia. (The same should probably be done with the "Locations" article.) JuJube (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it per TTN. Possible redirect to main article. --Izno (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete Not covered in third party sources. It isn't our decision to say that "X" class of game should have detailed articles on characters and the GNG helps (in practice) to prevent us from having to make that decision. Protonk (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. MuZemike (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the game is covered to a substantial extent, so are the characters, which is sufficient notability--for the minor ones, a separate article is the way to do it. The GNG is totally inapplicable to list articles--the individual items in the list do not need to have notability, and whether the parts of a notable topic should be grouped in a separate article is not a question of notability in the first place. Somehow, I'm not surprised after seeing attempts to delete minor & major character articles, to then see attempts to delete list articles with information about them and leave in only the barest information about only the major characters. I consider this a very limited perspective on what is important in fiction. What amount of summary is "unnecessary" is not really that obvious a question for ann encyclopedia that is not paper--very little content in Wikipedia is strictly speaking "necessary". One could argue that no rational person needs to come here to know about these games in the first place, and eliminate all game articles. Or for that matter, anything else which is covered elsewhere. DGG (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the GNG removes the need for editors like you and me to wonder what in the world all these games are and what detail should we cover them. I take issue with your claim that "if a came is covered, then the characters are covered". This is only true if the coverage of the game mentions the characters in a singificant sense. For plenty of works of fiction, this is the case. For some, reviews often fail to cover even a significant fraction of the major characters in the work of fiction for a variety of reasons. Among the reviews I found of the game (10 print reviews so far, haven't found a copy of the original PSM or Gamepro review yet), not one mentioned any character besides the player character more than once. Further, almost all mentions of the characters were literal mentions of a name, nothing more. Without those sources this list just becomes editors reporting on primary sources. I agree that the notability guideline compromise is pointing toward some leeway toward lists, but I don't think we are in that position. I am not making the demand that all elements be individually covered by third party sources. I'm only making the demand that some be covered. In some capacity. Without that coverage we cannot write a factually neutral article that meets WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. Protonk (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - DGG really nailed the reasons for keeping, and I see no convincing delete arguments. "Too detailed" could be solved by stripping down and rewriting the article (which it seriously needs), and most of the other arguments read like IDONTLIKEIT and JUSTNOTNOTABLE. McJeff (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as no guideline or policy suggests this is notable. Either it has reliable third-party sources, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it fails bothWP:N and WP:V. Keep in mind that notability has a specialized meaning on Wikipedia that ensures a basic standard of reliability, rather than a measure of importance. Several recent deletion discussions reveal that we hold character lists to high standards, and don't exempt them from our content policies: one, two, three, four, five, six. And those are just from the past couple of weeks. Randomran (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – plot of the game is not extensive to the point that a character list is necessary for understanding of the plot for a reader. As such, this is undue weight and unnecessary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Transwikied over to StrategyWiki:Legend of Legaia/Characters. -- Prod (Talk) 05:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created these pages, merged from a whole series of individual pages for each character. I've never played the game myself, and am happy to see them go. Ziggurat 08:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no independant sources to show any notability, and is just an OR plot recap.Yobmod (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Daddy

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Even if it was a single, it was not a popular one nor a notable one. Google searches confirm non notability. There are a lot of returns because the term Prussian Blue will turn up quite a few results. The song, however, does not turn up the necessary sources. Also, the sources given on the article are from the Prussian Blue blog and a site that was describing the custody battle. That fails WP:RS. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN, pretty much nothing on google, refs are questionable at best.--Terrillja (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking RS; I can't find much on the web, either. If anything, this should be a small note on the main musicians' article. It's not worthy of its own. SunDragon34 (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSONGS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prussian Blue. A search for the song doesn't reveal its independent notability, and it was a single so there's no album to use as a target. The group's page does mention the song though, and it the song title reasonably could be the subject of a search. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancients (board game)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search doesn't seem to bring up anything but this article and actual ancient board games. MvjsTalking 09:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I was able to find this article by Alan Emrich about the game. Based on it, the game was successful to go through multiple printings as shown by the evolution of the box cover art. But aside from this, I was unable to find anything else except for forum posts which aren't reliable sources. If there were more coverage, I'd keep. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure what the content of this article is, but it would seem relevant (a search revealed the existence of this article, but don't know if it's a review or what). Fire & Movement #70 article: Ancients Profile, by Bill Banks' Good Industries. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm assuming you found it from here. It appears that Fire & Movement was a publication devoted to board-based strategy wargames. the wiki article indicates that it had a long publication history. Alan Emrich is a well-known games writer and that list from his web site is a compnedium of articles he has written. So there is evidence that there is at least two articles about the game. However, access to Fire & Movement to review it may be rather difficult. -- Whpq (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 08:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pier Solar and the Great Architects

Non-notable indie game. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Megata Sanshiro. I also see no reliable sources after a brief look through news.google and scholar.google, as well as normal Google. --Izno (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability. MuZemike (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's a notable game, being the first to be released for the platform as cartridge + CD for (optional) simultaneous use, and also the first Role-Playing-Game for the platform since 1996, and the first new game for the platform released in Europe since 1997 (North-America: 1998). Notable media coverage of the game can be found on the sites linked at the end of the article. It also got covered in Japanese magazines: http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f249/matthewbennion/scan_mag.jpg - Original screenshot for comparision: http://www.piersolar.com/data/piersolar_10_08_menu0.jpg - The article itself needs major work though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCEvoCE (talk • contribs) 21:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Mind the WP:ITSNOTABLE common discussion pitfall. I am also not convinced that the one blurb in a Japanese magazine constitutes significant coverage stated in the WP:GNG. MuZemike (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Please keep because) I just rewrote the article. I removed unverified claims and blatant advertisement and added references to reliable sources, including a scan of a recent article published in the British RetroGamer magazine. DCEvoCE (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm overlooking something, the closest to a reliable source that discusses the article subject at any significant length is the scan of RetroGamer #49. Am I overlooking something? The tiny blurb (essentially two screenshots) from "an unknown Japanese magazine" doesn't seem terribly significant. D. Brodale (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya only get on keep !vote, ya know. --Izno (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy with the Retro Gamer article (although, do piersolar.com have permission from Imagine Publishing to publicly display this scan?) But I'm not conviced with the reliability of Sega-16.com or destructoid.com - and certainly not the use of forums and blogs such as Tavern RPG or seganerds.com. I'll lean towards a keep if an additional reliable source can be found.
- What makes Sega-16.com unreliable? It's the biggest Mega Drive site, has 50 000 unique visitors per month, interviews with former CEOs of Sega and loads of other content. If Sega-16 isn't reliable, no other Sega source is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.149.171 (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC) — 94.191.149.171 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don´t understand the fuss. Calling big websites like Sega-16, Sega Universe or destructoid unreliable seems random. Wikipedia does cover homebrew games and releases in small numbers. In the case of Pier Solar the technological achievements as well as it being the first game of this scale being released on the system in a decade make it absolutely noteable.

The game is to be released in December; then there will be no doubt at all about it´s noteability left, seeing how other "Indie"-games such as Beggar Prince or Last Hope have their Wikipedia-entries. So please do not delete it now, if you do the article will just have to be rewritten again once the game is shipped and the reviews are published. --108 Stars (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (as well as other stuff exists. We do things in the here and now, and not in the future. No comment on your first paragraph. --Izno (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WAX. Articles with similar problems will be dealt with in due time. In the meantime, we are discussing this article. MuZemike (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick google search for pier+solar+sega and came up with 700.000 hits. There are links from all over the world, but most seem to be German, English, French and Spanish. The game seems to have been covered by almost every single video game related website, forum and blog on the planet. That's certainly impressive for a game developed by some guys in their spare time. - It's even more impressive if you keep in mind, that the working title until January 2008 was "Tavern RPG", and even notable promotion such as the first trailer and this Sega-16.com Interview initially were released under that name (but that apparently changed later to reflect the game's final name). DCEvoCE (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Izno/MuZemike: I insist that the sudden fuss about this article is unbased. Of course other articles on similar games are absolutely worth mentioning here. Just dismissing some sources without reasoning is acting random. As stated before, quick searches via Google bring you tons of results, the media response has been rather big for a small game like this.

Even if you have doubt for whatever reason it is contra-productive to delete the article right now since the release date is so close and the whole article would have to be rewritten again then. There is no crystal ball needed to see that, being in the pre-ordering phase with a set release date tells it apart from some vapoware. So we have a yet unreleased videogame with a set release date in the near future, an article in the Retro Gamer magazine as well as several features on a large website such as Sega-16. And we have similar released games that have Wikipedia-entries. This should at least be sufficient to justify keeping this article for now to update it soon with upcoming review links. --108 Stars (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- A lot of hits on Google does not solely indicate notability (see WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE). In addition, you were involved in the interview, suggesting a conflict of interest in this AfD. I am going to ask for clarification on the reliability of the site at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources, but as far as I am concerned, I disagree. MuZemike (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I posted excerpts from the site's retrospective at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Sega-16.com, which mention that the site is used on many Wikipedia articles covering the Sega Mega Dtive / Genesis, and also in which third-party publications the site got covered, how many visitors they got daily, and the site's reputation among the industry. DCEvoCE (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- @D. Brodale and Marasmusine: The links on the article were used to source the information provided, not all of them can be considered third-party media coverage proving its notability. There is a small paragraph dedicated to third-party media coverage of the game, which includes the Retro Gamer Interview and the article in an unknown Japanese magazine, but also two Portuguese interviews of Brazilian project leader Tulio Adriano: 1 2. During another google search I stumbled across these articles about the game: computerandvideogames.com, rpgsquare.de, retrowelt.com, onlinewelten.com, and seganerds.com. One problem I ran into was that although almost every video game related site on the planet seems to have coverage of the game, in many cases this was reduced to the sites' message boards. I assume that will change once the game is released. The only place to host a review of the public beta/demo was Sega-16.com. - I will try to use some of these links to improve the article as soon as time permits. DCEvoCE (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - @MuZemike: Regarding the game's notability: I am well aware of the fact that lots of hits at google doesn't verify its notability, especially as the majority of links lead to message boards, and not published articles. I merely used google to prove that the game is being discussed at all. What in my opinion does make this game notable is that it's a unique approach of creating a game: It's a video game for a console for which not a single new game has been developed in a decade, and for which producing the required cartridge media alone is quite an achievement in itself. As such, the existence of the game likely won't be covered nor discussed outside of certain circles, so there likely won't be studies nor newspaper or TV coverage, but that certainly would apply to a new Barbie game for Windows Vista as well. DCEvoCE (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - @Izno: No, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but what we are discussing here is an article to a game that already is notable - it's gets its media coverage simply for being developed at all. That is one thing that separates this game from others: If there were hundreds of games in development while the same amount would be released each month, it probably would make each game less notable, but if it's the only one of its kind in more than a decade, and it then gets so much attention throughout the web, then that's what makes it notable. DCEvoCE (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DCEvoCE, by "unreliable" I'm referring to our guideline on WP:Reliable sources: "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I haven't heard of sega-16.com or destructoid, but if the concensus amongst members of the VG project here is that they fulfill this guideline, then that's good enough for me. I await feedback on this. CVG is a good source, but the news story isn't particularly substantial. I'm still leaning towards a keep. Marasmusine (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as severely doubtful. A new Sega MegaDrive/Genesis game being released after this long would have made it into far more media than the limited ones mentioned. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Little Big Adventure 2. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeelich

Zeelich has no substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N. No reliable third-party sources exist at all, and so the article probably can't meet WP:V either. Randomran (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, though a bold redirect might be a good idea. While I doubt it's going to come up as a search term, you never know. --Izno (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not worth a full article, but no argument given why a redirect or merge is inappropriate.DGG (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Little Big Adventure 2 per lack of verifiable sources as well as consisting of exclusively original research. However, plausible search term. MuZemike (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kmuch Co.,Ltd.

Non-notable animal feed company in Thailand. Does not satisfy any WP:CORP criterion. Fewer than 10 Google hits. Prod removed without comment by an IP. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Almost a speedy candidate per advertising. Undead Warrior (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 or G11. Spam and no references. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to NUM. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Num

Nonnotable someone's neologism. No evidence of active usage. `'Míkka >t 16:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Del - too little cont and too few sour to be worth kee. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Del - omg, neo, wp:n. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Clubmarx (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems like WP:NFT -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NUM. --Itub (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but delete the bad article first. `'Míkka >t 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm ok with redirect (prefer after delete but not required to make me happy). Never thought to look for an all cap version of that....duh me. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should have a look at the history, as well. The article that was originally here was moved to Num (disambiguation) by this article's creator. Uncle G (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source, protologism Dagordon01 (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Vampire Hunter D characters. or similar (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Count Magnus Lee

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are unnecessary character stubs from the same series:

TTN (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vampire Hunter D Edward321 (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new combination article about the characters. Since the series is complex, this would be the clearest way of dealing with them. I estimate that only a sentence or two on characters such as these will be needed, butt here should be at least identifying information.DGG (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Idol 2008. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Bergendahl

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. --TheLeft orium 15:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because you are on a tv show doesn't make you notable Clubmarx (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above AlwaysOnion (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Idol 2008, the reality program on which she is currently a contestant. B.Wind (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypotext

Unsourced neologism; quick google shows it is not in significant use, nor is it discussed in reliable sources. — Coren ^(talk) 15:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable neologism. `'Míkka >t 16:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable neologism that started its life as a copyvio (see history). PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term is not in current use, but I believe it is significant - see sources. A distinction should be made between popularity and significance. We present concepts, not words. Keep tekks ^(talk) 22:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note It doesnt matter if it is "popular" now, but at some time, the word had to be in widespread use. Not singular, but widespread, which is one way to define "notable" and the most popular. I just don't see that here. As for "significance", that word isn't used here much, see WP:IMPORTANT for the failed concensus or WP:INTERESTING for a similar view. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Clubmarx (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note The sources are reliable and independent. The lack of significant coverage on the internet is not an argument. The term was in widespread use by literary and new media theorists. tekks ^(talk) 22:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. MvjsTalking 15:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then, why not delete paratext also? tekks ^(talk) 16:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Howard

Unreferenced (the links are not to reliable sources) puff-bio. Two other identical versions have been speedily deleted. Delete. Originally PRODed by Ukexpat (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless independent discussion of the notability of the person provided. `'Míkka >t 16:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete puffy Clubmarx (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Roger Howard is asking for help in getting it deleted! Ok, not a WP reason, but.. Doug Weller (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Crescent

Bands fails WP:MUSIC by virtue of having one self-released record and no non-trivial coverage in third party sources. Speedy tag removed by author. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, no sources, delete! Clubmarx (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No evidence of meeting WP:BAND, no citation of reliable sources. Article appears to be a critical essay as opposed to a NPOV overview of the group. B.Wind (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dorques

Non-notable band that hasn't even released an album yet and basically just plays at bars and malls. CyberGhostface (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Home made CD-Rs, Myspace links, a Trivia section, "known for their lively performance". Probably nice guys, granted, but not enough of anything for an article. fails wp:music PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. sheesh Clubmarx (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G7. TerriersFan (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summerville Elementary School

A redirect to the school district (a redlink) has been reverted by the creator of this article. Elementary school with no claim of notability. Delete per WP:SCHOOL. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am happy to provide the content on request to the author. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1

Article about an apparent mathematical theorem, not yet published in reliable sources. So this constitutes original research.

Also nominating

Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Deleted as copies of the same page. `'Míkka >t 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Wikipedia is not the place for first publication. JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OEIS is managed/edited by renowned scientist - Neal Sloane, therefore OEIS reference is a Reliable Source ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apovolot (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apovolot (talk • contribs)

Comment Google Scholar finds no papers in mathematics by Neal Sloane; but I have posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to ask for comments. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His name is Neil J. A. Sloane (Google Scholar search); and the OEIS is described in On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. My impression is that Sloane's fact-checking is fairly light (other mathematicians probably have more experience). He said that "Most well-defined submissions get accepted, since an open-door policy seems the best." [16]. I think it's just about a reliable source. It certainly is refered a lot on Wikipedia; see for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:OEIS . -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that Sloane's OEIS is a reliable source, but it doesn't establish notability. Inclusion in one of the printed version might, though. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Entirely non-notable. (A mention in OEIS doesn't imply notability.) --Zundark (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikipedia is not where you hand in your dissitation. doktorb _words^deeds 16:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Sloane's OEIS is a valuable resource, but it is not in itself a peer-reviewed journal. It does usually refer to reliable sources when they exist: there are no such references here. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio - releasing it here on Wikipedia probably interferes with its inclusion in the planned book mentioned. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the "copyvio" argument in this case. There's no law against including in a book an idea that has appear in Wikipedia. And that's not our concern; it's that of the author. If it had been lifted from an existing book then it might be a copyright violation, but I see no indication of that. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is one of the worst-written articles I've seen an a long time, and that's a reason to hesitate when deciding to delete. We find people commenting here who are so ignorant that they haven't even heard of Neil J. A. Sloane. I'm going to try to figure out what the article says before forming an opinion on whether to delete. That may take a bit of work since it's not clearly written. Others should do likewise. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Running down other people for their ignorance is hardly courteous. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And participating in deletion of articles when one is too ignorant of the subject matter to make an informed judgment is a matter of concern. It happens too often. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind being called ignorant - I know I am, in this context, which is why I posted at WikiProject Mathematics to call in those who aren't. But the issue here is not is Povolotsky's mathematics good but has it achieved enough prior publication and independent reference to meet Wikipedia's requirements of notability and no original research? JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is so vaguely written that one cannot be sure of the answers to any of those questions. Its author clearly has no awareness of the usual Wikipedia conventions nor the usual norms of clear writing, and doesn't seem to understand that those would do more for his article's credibility than can insisting on reliability of sources. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has anyone figured out what this "problem" is? I'm guessing that by "n! + A = k2", he actually meant n! + A = k². Saying that for any fixed integer A, that equation has only finitely many solutions for n and k is at least a proposition I can understand. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The three problems are stated in the OEIS entry as:

1) n! + n^2 != m^2 (except for trivial case with n=0, m=1) per conducted calculations doesn't yield any solutions from n=1 to n= 200,000
2) n! + Sum(j^2, j=1, j=n) != m^2 per conducted calculations doesn't yield any solutions from n=1 to n= 2,000,000
3) n! + prime(n) != m^k is too difficult to cover by exhaustive calculations ...

JohnCD (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regardless of this Neil Stone nonsense, which has now even been inserted into the article, the actual article imparts essentially zero information, and makes no useful claim to notability. It's also indescribably badly written, to the extent that if there is a claim of notability its impossible to discern on what basis. MadScot (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Nsk92 (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. The OEIS sequence is authored by Alexander R. Povolotsky so it is not independent. The article is created by User:Apovolot so very likely WP:COI. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article comes close to meeting CSD#G1. It is possible that, with the limited source material, this article is unsalvageably incoherent. Also, Povolotsky creating an article about an eponymous conjecture is a conflict of interest. Finally, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and it is not clear from the sole reference if this conjecture has been published. Wronkiew (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have rewritten the article as far as I can to aid the discussion. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I see no reason to change my original !vote for delete. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR. Non-notable as pointed out as it seems no to have been published in math journals, and also the author is the same person as the mathematician, IOW serious COI issues. -- Alexf^(talk) 09:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - Re "Notability" and "Original Research" - I have plenty of email responses similar to the one I list below as an example re each of my 3 conjectures.

Regards, Alexander R. Povolotsky

PS You could also ask for opinions of 2 Wikipedia editors, who are familiar with my 3 conjectures: Charles Matthews and Graeme McRae.

Forwarded message ----------

(E-mail content and e-mail addresses redacted due to privacy concerns.) silverneko (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apovolot (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would like to point out my opinion that conjectures (which are not theorems but claims, based on computations and common sense, - in other words, conjectures are calls asking to be formally proved ) posted in "Unsolved problems in mathematics" section of the Wikipedia (for the reasons described above) should be treated less rigorously with regards to Original Research requirements. Except for the Richard Guy book there are no "sources" (in the classical sense of it) where such things could be published. Posts in sci.math.research and OEIS should be considered as sufficient sources. Those posts are read by professionals and if post is deemed incredible - then counterclaims, rejections and counter-examples are quickly following. To go further, even proofs nowadays are just posted on the Web pages - consider Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture - he refused to publish it in what Wikipedia calls "credible sources" ... It doesn't make sense to me that Wikipedia, which itself is Web published media, doesn't recognize Web based postings as credible sources ... Apovolot (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Finally I want to reiterate that deletion of problem_2 and problem_3 as copies of problem_1 is not justified ! Those are three DIFFERENT problems - each is unique ! And yes each of those three relates to both Brocard's and Dabrowski ! Of course one might consider replacing those 3 articles with just 3 comments in the Brocard conjecture article - I have no problen with such solution ;-) Apovolot (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsgroup posts and self-published web pages are not considered reliable enough to establish notability on Wikipedia. Sure, Perelman didn't submit his proof to a peer-reviewed journal, and Wikipedia still has an article on his proof. However, because it was notable, there are references to the proof in those journals, for example:

Mackenzie, Dana (December 22, 2006). "BREAKTHROUGH OF THE YEAR: The Poincaré Conjecture—Proved". Science. 314 (5807): 1848–1849. doi:10.1126/science.314.5807.1848.

I think the best bet for this to be covered in Wikipedia is to start with getting published in Unsolved Problems. Wronkiew (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the closing admin will be kind enough to userify the page rather than delete it. This would go a long way toward not WP:BITEing, and the main objective of the editors !voting delete is still accomplished. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to userifying. Wikipedia is encyclopedia not private webhosting service. The conjectures in question are already posted somewhete in the web. No reason to waste wikipedia resources for it. Twri (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem gets published in Richard Guy's book, then a userfied version could be adapted to become an article later. As it is, the substantial objection to the article's present existence seems to be that it's new material appearing in Wikipedia for the first time, thus "original research". Michael Hardy (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No independent published discussion. Twri (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't bring my problems to Alexander R. Povolotsky - why is he bringing his here? Problems with WP:OR sink this one. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did the best I could to redact the e-mail content and e-mail addresses posted by Apovolot due to privacy concerns. Apovolot, I am sure you acted with all good faith. Please be advised, however, that posting of e-mail addresses puts one at risk of having those email addresses harvested by a spambot. Also, I have heard that posting an email written by someone else is possibly a copyright violation. Lastly, I suspect the email and email address were posted by Apovolot without permission. At any rate, I deleted the email and addresses to protect the privacy of the sender. Apovolot and Richard Pinch also have this email on their talk pages so I will delete there as well. I will post on the Admin's Noticeboard in case they feel it is appropriate to oversight or whatever. I am a new user but I was advised that this is the appropriate action at the Help Desk. Please revert or correct me as needed! silverneko (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to have deleted the name of Daniel Asimov, the author of one of the emails. It seems reasonable for anyone arguing in favor of keeping that article to cite that name, since he is, if not famous or "notable" (in Wikipedia's sense of the word), and least a respected mathematician whose name some of us will recognize. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by JForget as G7. Non-admin closure. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Willson O'Connell

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Walter Willson O'Connell

Autobiographical article that fails WP:BIO in every respect. Zero Google, Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books hits for "Walter O'Connell Tax Services". I think that this is A7 or possibly G11 material, myself, but it won't hurt to have a consensus in case the article should magically reappear (as, according to the creator's talk page, it already has, under variations of the name, several times). Article creator has also been adding himself to various WP lists, and those entries will need to be addressed when this article is deleted. Deor (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, autobiography, advertising. JohnCD (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsatisfactory assertion of notability, no external references for verifiability, Google search gives only one relevant result, which is commercial. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines as outlined above. doktorb _words^deeds 16:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is spam/self-promotion, right down to the address and telephone number I just removed from the article. Maralia (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per the consensus and also the risk of negative unsourced BLP. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander "Harry" Cole

Non-notable Pistachiones (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only reference that could possibly be helpful is from a student paper. Fails "significant coverage" and "reliable source". Bongomatic (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has done nothing significant or notable, according to the article. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Greco

Non-notable, and non-serious, political candidate. Per WP:POLITICIAN, just being an unelected candidate for political office does not confer notability; and no notability apart from his candidature is demonstrated. Wikipedia is not a hustings. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Non-serious shouldn't be a criterion for exclusion. The UK's Screaming Lord Sutch was never a 'serious' political candidate, but I'd consider him more notable than most of the actual MPs in any given parliament, for example. Now, whether this guy has SLS levels of media coverage is another issue .... MadScot (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, up to a point, but Screaming Lord Sutch was an exception. Generally, a frivolous candidate with no chance of getting in must have less notability than a serious one who might be elected. But the point here is the principle that candidates aren't notable until elected unless they have some independent claim. JohnCD (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN candidate. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of whether or not his platform can be considered "serious," he is completely legitimate in the sense that he is listed on the New Jersey ballot. He is just as much a candidate as the others (Lance, Stender) who do have Wikipedia entries. Political candidates shouldn't be omitted from encyclopedia entries just because their stance is either controversial or non-traditional. This should remain a service for people doing research, and should apply to voters wanting to make an informed decision.Hdingfield (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dean_Greco" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdingfield (talk • contribs) 04:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he's on the ballot doesn't mean he's notable, which is the primary concern here. Perhaps you haven't read WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO? If you haven't, please do so before replying - the article has to meet at least one of those criteria. As for your concern about controversial candidates, Wikipedia may actually have a bias in favor of controversial candidates, as they are more likely to have been discussed by reliable sources than similarly situated non-controversial candidates. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Unelected political wanabees are not notable, whether serious or not. If he wins, then recreate.Yobmod (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lushotology

Contested prod. Neologism/parody religion that shows no signs of notice by independent third-party sources. All sources cited in the article discuss the band but make little or no mention of the subject of this article. Search engine test finds MySpace and Urban dictionary mentions, with all mentioning sites either being controlled by the creating band or allowing for anonymous submission. Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day unless proper sources are provided to demonstrate verifiability and the ability to create a neutrally worded article without resorting to original research. --Allen3 ^talk 14:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - non-notable neologism. JohnCD (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Borderline WP:BOLLOCKS. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Connection

Although I think that Loose Connection is an excellent service, I don't see why it merits an article. It's just a small provider, supplying wi-fi to just 19 places. It may possibly be the biggest individual supplier of wi-fi in Brighton & Hove (difficult to tell) but from personal knowledge I can state that the majority of places that provide wi-fi here don't use Loose Connection. Thus there is nothing particularly significant about the organisation. Also, I can't find non-trivial external references. (Some of the external references I can find by Googling were actually written by myself!) A bit iffy (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:CORP. A listing of the individual hot spots doesn't help here. Orphaned articles are usually orphaned for a reason. Note: not to be confused with Loose Connection, a notable jazz combo of the 1970s. B.Wind (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An "excellent service" does not mean it needs an article in an encyclopaedia. A little mum-and-pop Wi-Fi shop doesn't meet WP:CORP. MvjsTalking 06:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fry (Band)

Appears to be a strictly local bar band, with no released recordings or other accomplishments that might satisfy the requirements of WP:BAND. Nature of name makes on-line searching difficult, but Google and Google News searches for "Fry band Swindon" don't turn up anything looking like reliable sources. The information in the "Band Members" section is a copy-and-paste reproduction of the bios linked from the photograph here. Deor (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet the requirements of WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no released albums, no secondary sources. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not MySpace doktorb _words^deeds 16:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bordering on speedy delete territory (A7) as there is no assertion of notability. In addition, there's that copyvio problem mentioned by Deor above. B.Wind (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shailendra Singh

Delete. Unreferenced article, notability not established, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established and spammy...--Boffob (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Appears to be fluff piece, self-advertizing.Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and blatant self advertising. Speedy could have been better. Docku:“what up?” 23:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reason as Docku: --GDibyendu (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should probably have been speedied along with the other people mentioned in the article. — Lost^(talk) 05:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete~~Strong Keep~~ – As an member elected to a sub-national (ie state) assembly, he qualifies under the notability criteria. See WP:POLITICIAN. Adequate sources are available, its just a question of searching properly. The Election Commission of India lists his name, so notability is unchallenged. The article needs a cleanup, but cleanup is not grounds for deletion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you figure out which constituency he represents? My best guess is that, if he had, whosoever wrote this article would have listed that info, sourced or unsourced. The link that you provided talks about "SHAILENDRA SINGH RAWAT", who seems to be a different man from this one. --GDibyendu (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right the politician is someone else. That rediff.com reference was entirely misleading. This spreadsheet confirms an age difference. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- no offense, but I am afraid this nomination is an example of systemic bias. The guy is not from the Anglosphere, so he doesn't count? Geo Swan (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offence taken. Read Assume good faith. WWGB (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- There seem to be over half a dozen individuals named Shailendra Singh who may merit coverage here. Geo Swan (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some of them are listed in Shailendra Singh (disambiguation). Most notable person of this name is the Singer/Musician from Bollywood. --GDibyendu (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most significant change

Promotional article/advert on original research riddled with inappropriate or vanity external links. Descriptions are vague and geared to click external links to non-notable researcher's theses. Boffob (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs an intro and the good references that are hidden in here need better link targets and inlining their cites. As a topic though, it seems notable and supported by independent references. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. The article claims that two people are promoting a theory, does seem a bit promotional as well. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pharmboy. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont know how or where else to make this comment (please advise me at rick.davies@gmail.com) but, the deletion decision is uninformed.The MSC method has been in use since the mid-1990s, it is used by a large number of aid agencies around the world, especially NGOs, and there is a dedicated email list of 900+ people who share information about its use. There have also been articles about it published in academic journals on evaluation in the USA, Australia and the UK. If the style of the article needs improvement, then let it be improved —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rckjdavies (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC) keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.5.83 (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alissa Musto

Fails WP:MUSIC. Has won a regional talent show, but that wouldn't be considered major. Was on a national show, but didn't do well. No refs support notability. Only PR refs. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP-This page shouldn't be deleted. Is being on a National television Show not a good enough reason to have a wikipedia page? I have seen"stubs" about kids that maybe had a small role in one film an they get a page? This girl has a large resume and deserves a page. Even though she didn't win the national competition she was choosen to shoot a commercial for the show and won 3rd overall.

-Amy

Comment - Per WP:Notability, needs to "has [sic] received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Of the four references listed on the article only one is actually about her (and her family, the projo.com one). Also, the "there's other articles worse than this" thing doesn't work on Wikipedia, sorry. --Razor ICE 13:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N.--Boffob (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as a child prodigy. While she may fail Wikipedia:Notability (music), she satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people). The links at the bottom of the page support a short article. Fred Talk 16:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fred above. Matt Deres (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike Fred I see nothing in WP:Notability (people) that justifies inclusion. There's been no major awards, and nothing to indicate independent notability - the contests are themselves of questionable notability, but even if they are, they do not in themselves confer notability upon the contestants (WP:BIO1E). Right now this subject has had their 15 minutes of (relatively insignificant) fame; if this is as far as it gets then long-term there is no value in the article. Per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:CRYSTAL we should wait and see whether notability is established; for now the article is premature. Ros0709 (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony M.

Blatant advertisment; not notable; suspect COI violation. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons mentioned by nominator.--Boffob (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All female band

Can't find anything in the article that suggests this concept is of note. Article is poorly sourced and appears to be a piece of original research. Note this article claims the concept is distinct from girl groups neon white talk 12:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the article needs to be cleaned up and references cited. As a note, the article went through the process of deletion before (Articles For Deletion:All Female Band) and the result was to keep. Having a "history" of a genre is needed, however forever labeling a musician based on gender is not. In this case this article tries to show a history of females in music - which is very fair. As fair as an article on the history of Rap Music, a history of Country music, a history of Native American music and so on. Or branching out a bit - how about a history of the Military in the United Sates that had a subsection on women in combat. Fact is, that in certain genres of music, females were always shoved in the back or ignored all together. I think it is very important to try and show a history of why that was and how it changed. Also an "all female band" is distinct from a "girl group" (As an "all male band" is distinct from a "boy band") and that issue has been discussed for a long time now as well. But that is for another discussion elsewhere.Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no sources for a distinct concept here. That's the issue, it's not enough to simple point to books about musical women, that doesnt source this concept. It's original research. --neon white talk 21:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Seems notable, contains encyclopedic content, and the distinction with girl groups makes perfect sense to me. Could use some help with sources but deserves to stay. --Lockley (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - topic is notable and much has been written about it. The article even provides some external sources, but not enough - and this can and should be fixed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All female bands are widely discussed in reliable sources. Article has many references listed. Nomination makes no suggestion these references are not valid. Article clearly has problems with original research but that is a argument for fixing the article not deleting it. The difference between girl groups and all female bands as this article tries to describe is real, better description and sources are needed. Another reason for fixing the article, not for deleting it. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article contains sources and simply needs cleanup. Any problems that I see can be fixed without deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simply because topic is notable. Everything else can be fixed. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David James (singer)

Appears to be a somewhat blatant advertisement; not notable. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see any significant coverage or anything that would satisfy WP:MUSIC. It says on his official Myspace bio that his last album was produced in his mother's basement and that he mainly plays in clubs in LA. This doesn't give me hope that substantial independent coverage is out there. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic delete. This isn't even close - two download-only albums? Nothing else, no tours, no WP:MUSIC. B.Wind (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of all-female bands

As In my opinion the criteria for this list is too general in scope which has lead to many disputes and why is all female hyphenated? neon white talk 12:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think rather than delete the list, the lists specific criteria for inclusion needs to be re-written. I 100% agree the criteria is way too general. If one looks at the history of the list you will see there has been the same discussions about defining "All Female Band" since 2004. On September 1, 2008 I asked for input as to how to better "weed" the list and how to make clearer the lists specific guidelines for inclusion. My attempt at a reformatting and rewording last week failed because there was no consensus reached. The List of female rock singers, List of female bass guitarists,List of elected or appointed female heads of state and the many other "list of female" lists are pretty clear from their titles what goes on the list. One of the biggest problems with this list is that "Band" is not clearly defined. Nor is "All Female". It was suggested by a third party that "All female band" be defined so I added a 30 request October 1 and added a thread header for responses: (Talk:List of all-female bands#Definitions of "All Female Band"). So as I say - Keep the list, re-write the lists specific criteria for inclusion and define "all female band" Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say keep and rewrite. "All female" is a clear and unambiguous criteria for inclusion, and is likely to be mentioned in reliable sources that cover each band. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite the introduction. Unhyphenate all female. Reliable source refer to bands based on gender making this a relevant topic. Content disputes are not a reason for deletion. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many relevant sources for all-female bands, and the criteria for inclusion couldn't really be more clear-cut. Simply needs cleanup and sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, as the guideline says, we can make a list of absolutely anything. Is it encyclopedia to create seperate lists for every concept merely seperating them on the basis of gender? --neon white talk 21:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for same reason as above: topic is notable, everything else can be fixed. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return the Favor

Both sides of a double-a-side single—non-charting, very little media coverage. Prods on both articles were removed without comment. Both fail WP:MUSIC#Songs. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently "Turnin' Me On" was not released as planned—as yet only "Return the Favor" is available via Amazon or iTunes as a single track. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Return the Favor," -seeing as it's the single, with a video- and delete "Turnin' Me Off." —Preceding unsigned comment added by FSX-2007 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 07:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect both to the album these singles are from. This small info fits quite well in the parent article `'Míkka >t 08:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Turnin' Me On" as it seems to have been cancelled and keep "Return The Favor", the song hasn't even been released to radio yet and the music video has just been completed, give it a chance, there are plenty of other less successful singles on wikipedia that remain, why not this one? - mos-def (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Seeing as the video for RTF just premiered on BET, I saw keep it, delete TMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.27.141 (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: The official video of the song on Yahoo! Music: http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/KeriHilson/Return-The-Favor--202141633;_ylt=AvAwjerSeUbk_ykc6ftLtTA1wSUv —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRyudo (talk • contribs) 23:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page, "Return The Favor" IT IS a single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.177.210 (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither being released as a single nor having a music video impart notability. See WP:MUSIC#Songs for details. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it being released on a major label does (Interscope is a major label, isn't it?). And Hello, Control, I don't understand why you're acting like a prude here; I had a Be bold attitude when I first came on, but ever since your standards for notability kept changing, I am now at a point where I am now afraid to contribute. In a nutshell, Strong Keep, like it would be when I first joined. Tom Danson (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - They're not my "prudish" standards, they're Wikipedia's standards. And they've pretty much been the same the entire time I've been here, and there's nothing in WP:MUSIC about major label singles being automatically notable. I'm sorry if you feel that I've scared you off, I can't imagine how I could've done that—I don't recall having bumped into you before. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not speaking to only you specifically, but to every editor who insists on following the letter over the spirit of the rules. Because I want to improve everyone's experience of Wikipedia, I choose to pull the Ignore all rules policy card. Tom Danson (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Turnin' Me On" as it is a canceled single. Redirect "Return the Favor" as it is a single, but isn't notable yet. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 20:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this passes WP:MUSIC now. Heavy elements of WP:CRYSTAL detected in the article. VG ☎ 11:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Has everybody forgotten that [Wikipedia is not paper]? Tom Danson (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TechExcel

Blatant advertisement for subject; rather surprising that CSD G11 was declined -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much sounds like it was pasted directly from an adverising brochure, with phrases like "TechExcel ServiceWise is your comprehensive internal help desk and IT service management solution regardless of how simple or complex your business processes may be." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure marketing-speak spam. JohnCD (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite - the company seems notable and verifiable through media coverage. However, the article itself is written as an advertizement. This isn't a good reason to delete the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The Young and the Restless characters. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Chancellor III

Non-notable character, has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Young and the Restless characters to allow interested parties to merge. No separate article needed to cover plot (WP:NOT#PLOT). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of The Young and the Restless characters. Article is just a recap of the various plots the character has been involved in. No coverage. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list, but include enough information to explain who he is--not just the bare list that is there are present, which is just an index. DGG (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Young and the Restless characters. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Bladeson

Non-notable character, has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Young and the Restless characters. No coverage to support a separate article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete or) Redirect to List of The Young and the Restless characters. No content to support a separate article per WP:SPINOUT. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all above. JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes

Game shows do not require episode lists. They do not have any plot details, so they just act as a directory for various trivial details. TTN (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that this show is no longer on the air (and has yet to be released on DVD), makes it a relic of television history. This program was, like JEOPARDY!, an education-based gameshow. And each episode did have a tiny plot attached to it to keep things moving along. Until the complete series makes it to DVD (or is rerun in syndication), this article serves as a tremendous source of information about the outcome of the show, every step of the way.
Delete. Somewhat agree with TTN's reasoning. With serial works, a list of episode summaries aids with the understanding of the programme. As the format of a gameshow stays roughly the same it can be summarised with a few paragraphs in the main article. This list is well written and complete, it'd be a shame to lose it. Can it be transwikied somewhere? Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I believe the nominator's premise -- that this was a "game show" -- is based on a misconception. I believe this was an educational show, not a "game show". I believe the episode did have plots. Geo Swan (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The episodes have individual cookie cutter segments that utilize (extremely terrible) actors. It was just a gimmick to make it more interesting or something. Listing them will do nothing to help someone understand the show. TTN (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the show is notable, I see no reason why a list of episodes shouldn't be. There's more detail in this list than merely titles, it does contribute somethign to an overall history of what appears to be a popular show of some interest. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind you that notability is not inherited but must be shown via reliable sources independent of the subject. MuZemike (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the popularity of this fallacy, WP:NOTINHERITED isn't itself a proof that all items related to a notable article are thus non-notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki if a good wikihome can be found — lack of verifiable sources as well as Wikipedia is not a directory. MuZemike (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TTN's reasoning is basically sound here. WitWiCS (woot!) did use segues that weren't in game show format but no "plot" existed from day to day which any reliable source could report on. What sources were used in compiling this list? How do we know it is accurate? How can other readers verify the elements on this list? Protonk (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although technically a game show, it was a game show with distinctive plotlines. That makes it a special case, and makes a List of Episodes article perfectly viable. 23skidoo (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of episodes is exactly what we want in general. It has plots, I don't see a problem. Hobit (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is a fair topic for an article. The show was basically a game show, but it worked within the logic of a fictional universe, with daily plotlines and a large cast of recurring fictional characters. However, I'm a bit curious who compiled the information at TV.com. Zagalejo^^^ 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a normal game show. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete but after transwiking the table, primarily this being based on indiscriminate info. I do appreciate the other comments that this show had something that resembled a plot, but when you consider that it was basically a "Clue" like plot (Evil person X stole Y and went to Z), with X, Y, and Z being essentially random with no recurring theme throughout the show, it's hard to say that's really a plot. The other details on the table (the ultimate winner, the map used for the final round, and if it was won or not) feels very excessive for what we'd normally consider part of a television show's coverage, and leaves questions that (at least) I'd ask, like who were the other players, how much did they win by, and so forth - again, things that would not be included but feel necessary to have to include to complete this table, and thus making it difficult to access. There's something in this list that should be saved, and that's why I think transwiki is the better option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)
Neutral leaning to delete While I can see the usefulness of (parts of) this list, my main concern is the lack of sourcing. Unlike many TV series, there are no DVDs for WitWiCS to quickly check if the entries in this list are accurate, and in the absense of reliable third-party sources, I am reluctant to keep lists around that are sourced from volatile primary sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per 23Skidoo. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but find and add a source. This game show did in fact have a "plot" of sorts in each episode. However, if reliable sources can't be found to verify the info in the list, then delete or merge into Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (game show). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs sources, but as per 23skidoo, this game show is a special case, so a list of episodes is fine. -- how do you turn this on 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree, it needs sources if it is to be kept. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 19:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any violations of Wikipedia:Notability given many TV Episode lists, deprived of other independent sources, must rely solely on the particular episode or primary sources to reference themselves. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Lyons

Had a few roles but lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Searching Google news and choosing ALL dates brings up plenty. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. None of the roles to date have been significant. Minor non-recurring roles only in 15 year career. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Evans

AfDs for this article:

Subject has requested deletion of his BLP. Apart from his claimed discoveries in fringe science, subject is otherwise unnotable. Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not accepted by the mainstream scientific community and it has not been presented by the mainstream press, so I guess it's not notable enough. bogdan (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Daniel (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mathsci (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and bogdan. Does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:PROF. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PROF, and notability as a meme in popular culture is not established. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These sorts of articles are valuable to readers, who otherwise may have difficulty finding impartial information about a topic. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an inappropriate subject for a biography, as no independent biographical sources exist. He makes a number of claims to notability, including being a (or the) "Civil List Scientist", but these claims are entirely unverifiable from any independent source - while it is apparent from a primary source replicated on his website that he enjoys a pension of some sort from the Civil List, there is nothing in Hansard or on any government website to indicate why it is, and his claim that this is somehow an endorsement of his AIAS work is not supportable from a single independent source. There is, in fact, no reputable source for the existence of any distinction or title of "Civil List Scientist". The civil list for 2007 does not mention him or his purported title. This singular claim is emblematic of the the problems with verifying anything about the man himself. On the other hand, his theory may indeed be "notable twaddle". I would suggest that if four or five decent sources could be found discussing his work in at least reasonably dispassionate terms then an article on the theory may well be justified. This article, however, has to go as seriously failing WP:BLP. Guy 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This case is not really clear-cut. The editorial by Nobelist 't Hooft (cited in the article) mentions 15 papers published in the journal "Foundations of Physics Letters" (not part of Foundations of Physics and another two articles dedicated solely to refuting Evans' theory. On the other hand, the citation record is rather dismal: Scopus mentions two articles cited 14 and 13 times, the rest are in the single digits. Taken together, I think this fails WP:PROF and barring coverage in mainstream media, also WP:BIO. As an aside, not every theory that is wrong is pseudoscience. Given that this theory was published in respected physics journals (there are also articles in Physica B: Condensed Matter and Acta Physica Polonica, Series B), I would hesitate to call this pseudoscience. --Crusio (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not commented on Evans' mathematics: he has claimed that the Bianchi identities are not valid for an arbitrary connection on a principal bundle. This is nonsense: it is not just pseudoscience, but extremely bad science. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For a real scientist, commiting errors is less bad than doing pseudoscience. I have no objection to "bad science". I object to pseudoscience without solid evidence. --Crusio (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in RL world of scientific research these labels are very rarely applied. A lot of good scientists make unintentional errors or oversights which they later correct. Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There don't seem to be any notable contributions here, beyond theories which not only have not been accepted, but seem to qualify as pseudoscience. That doesn't qualify as notable. FlyingToaster (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to FlyingToaster (and Daniel above) This isn't a vote, please provide some sort of reasoning. Thank you. -- how do you turn this on 18:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My reason is the nomination, as I fielded (and replied to) the subject's request for deletion. My position in this debate was more to confirm the existance of said request (as it is in our restricted access system) and to suggest that I would agree with/support the subject's request. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barely notable individual, and per reasonable request for this to be deleted, make it so. -- how do you turn this on 18:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His theories have not until now been accepted by the mainstream scientific community? How about are not accepted? But, as has been pointed out, he's just not notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing an reasonable test of notability and verifiability. There's just not enough out there to support even the barest of stubs in a reliable manner. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How many of the people claiming lack of notability have actually looked at this? It's clear that Evans is a crank whose ideas get no mainstream support, but it's equally clear that his ideas are notable enough to have provoked three reputable physicists to publish papers debunking them. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is clear is you are violating WP:BLP here. This is not a forum to discuss your personal views on the subject. Please refrain from attacking him. (I suggest you remove your attacks as soon as possible) -- how do you turn this on 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:How do you turn this on, I am not sure your comments are helpful. You should be aware that one way of assessing a scientist's mathematical contributions is to look at mathscinet. Evans does not do very well there, as there are several published refutations of his work, confirmed by reviewers. This should not be mistaken for a personal attack: this is just an indication that he has repeatedly made errors in his mathematics. Please stop wikilawyering. Mathsci (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a crank is a personal attack. -- how do you turn this on 22:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~User:How do you turn this on, only you have used the word "crank" on this page~~. The papers I mentioned and their corresponding reviews on mathscinet are now in the article: they point out serious errors in Evans' mathematics, which have been confirmed by neutral reviewers for Mathematical Reviews. Some of these articles were referred to in the editorial of 't Hooft. Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) (I have removed the mathematical criticisms: please see below) Mathsci (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"…only you have used…" – that is incorrect [17]. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad science usually is ignored by other scientists. Pseudoscience is almost always ignored. Here several people actually bother to write articles to refute his work. That's not bad, I think. Dosn't show notability, but gives the impression that his errors (published in peer-reviewed journals) were not of the "bad science" and "pseudoscience" varieties. --Crusio (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious errors in his mathematics were pointed out in published articles, confirmed in Mathematical Reviews. Is it up to wikipedians to make value judgements about that? 't Hooft pointed out in his editorial that refereeing for Foundations of Physics Letters had been lax, with a particular reference to the published papers of Evans. Mathsci (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but 't Hooft doesn't say a word about the laxity (or not) of refereeing in FPL. But do we really need to go into all these detailed discussions about whether this is pseudoscience or not? There pretty much seems to be consesnsus here that this article should be deleted regardless. --Crusio (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(a) The mathematics has irretrievable problems (see the references here [18]). (b) 't Hooft wrote:

Between 2003 and 2005, the former Journal "Foundations of Physics Letters" (now subsumed into "Foundations of Physics") has published a series of papers by M.W. Evans. A partial list of these papers is given below. Together they would form a book that was intended to unleash a revolutionary paradigm switch in theoretical physics, rendering results in quantum field theory and general relativity, including the Standard Model, superstring theory and much of cosmology, obsolete. The magic word is ECE (Einstein-Cartan-Evans) theory, and the theory is claimed to have ignited frantic activities on the internet. In fact however, these activities have remained limited to personal web pages and are absent from the standard electronic archives, while no reference to ECE theory can be spotted in any of the peer reviewed scientific journals. This issue of Foundations of Physics now publishes 3 papers (G.W. Bruhn, F.W.Hehl, F.W. Hehl and Y.N.Obukhov) that critically analyse the ECE theory and its claims. M.W. Evans has declined the invitation to respond, referring to his web pages, http://atomicprecision.com. Taking into account the findings of Bruhn, Hehl and Obukhov, the discussion on ECE in the journal Foundations of Physics will be concluded herewith unless very good arguments are presented to resume the matter.

These editorial comments seem unambiguous: under the previous editor-in-chief of FPL, Alwyn van der Merwe, a long series of papers was accepted which presented a "new approach" to physics; however, the theory has been pointed out to have serious problems and therefore the journal will not publish any further papers on this topic. This shows a change in attitude to the previous editor, a friend of Evans, who accepted all Evans' papers: this could be summarised as laxness. In another editorial in the same journal, 't Hooft makes further comments:

During my first couple of months in this office, it became clear that fundamental questions in physics and philosophy also attract the interest of many laymen physicists. We receive numerous submissions from people who venture to attack the most basic premises of theories such as Special Relativity, but instead only succeed in displaying a lack of professional insight in how a physical theory is constructed. I suspect that some of these people may have been working somewhere in an attic, deprived from daylight for decades, determined only to reemerge with a Theory of Everything in their hands. Even though they may be very sincere, we have to disappoint such authors. New insights are gained only by intense interactions with professionals all over the globe, and by solidly familiarizing oneself with their findings, and we must make a selection from only those papers whose authors have a solid understanding of the topics they are discussing. Fortunately they also submit their work, and their clever inventiveness continues to surprise us. The foundations of our science are indeed very much worthwhile to be intensely studied. I am sure that progress of science strongly depends on the deep and daring insights that may be gained by taking a fresh look at the most basic facts that underly our present knowledge.

I can't see much room for confusion about what 't Hooft intended to say.

But yes, I agree absolutely with your last statement as I wrote below: the case for deletion does seem clear; and it is unnecessary to see what is crawling around under all these stones. Mathsci (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really have to discuss all this here? Evans' theory may be pseudoscience, bad science, or just wrong. It's not a personal attack to argue for one of these, but I don't see how it's relevant to this deletion discussion. OTOH calling Evans himself names ("crank") is a personal attack (although WP:NPA is not directly applicable because Evans is not taking part in the discussion). A combined reading of WP:NPA and WP:BLP should make it plain that Looie496 has violated the spirit of our policies. It would be clearly unacceptable in the article (even with reliable sources), and it would be clearly unacceptable here if Evans was an established editor rather than someone who simply started editing because there was a Wikipedia article on hims with a severe BLP violation (a "pseudoscience" box with no appropriate sources for justification). Is it so hard to understand that BLP subjects are human beings, and that even if some of these human beings should need to be humiliated for some reason, it is never acceptable to do this on Wikipedia? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that Mathsci had not seen the personal attack when writing his last contribution, so part of what I just wrote is moot. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's correct. Sorry about the confusion. However, I am in agreement with you. In fact I just removed the mathematical criticisms from the article, even though they are technically correct. As you say, since notability has not been established and the subject has requested the removal of the BLP, we really don't need to go down that avenue at the moment. Thanks for your input. Mathsci (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I apologize for using the word "crank". I assumed that as a signed entry on a discussion page this would be seen as my personal opinion. Please substitute "determined proponent of a fringe theory". Looie496 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like the discussion is tending towards deletion, and I'm fine with that. I just wanted to comment that if the article is deleted it should be because the subject is genuinely not notable or information about him is not verifiable, not because of concerns about the quality of his work. Even if it were to be established that his work were complete rubbish pseudoscience, this would not be a good argument for deletion. Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience provide a valuable service, by ideally being an unbiased (or at least neutral) description of the subject. We provide a resource that can help readers who have encountered a novel idea to determine whether it is accepted science, fringe science, or pseudoscience. We can't do that if we purge articles on pseudoscience topics from the 'pedia.

It's also not clear to me that the subject of an article on Wikipedia has standing to request its deletion. As long as the article is NPOV and properly cited, we should not cater to the wish of individuals to have unflattering information about themselves removed.--Srleffler (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I agree completely. Some pseudoscience is well-known, widely-reported and needs to be included in WP (think homeopathy, astrology, and other such stuff). And subjects can ask modification of their bio if it contains mistakes (or worse, outright lies), but suppose Sarah Palin would request deletion of her WP bio, that would clearly not be in the interest of creating a good encyclopedia. In the present case, however, there is no evidence of notability under WP:ACADEMIC. Neither are there verifiable, independent sources arguing for notability under WP:BIO. So regardles of whether the work of this person falls under "sloppy, bad science", "pseudoscience", or "wrong science, but honest mistake", there is a clear-cut case for deletion here. --Crusio (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two conflicting requirements: the need to alert WP readers to problems with fringe science (in this case ECE theory); and the more stringent rules for BLPs. In the past Evans tried to use his theory to justify the claims of the motionless electromagnetic generator crowd; more recently he tried the same thing with the Irish company Steorn. This sort of stuff is beyond the fringe. Perhaps one solution is to have articles describing several related fringe theories in physics, which are not biographical. Mathsci (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evans is not just a pseudoscientist; he is an aggressive pseudoscientist. He takes legal action against those who point out obvious errors in his mathematics. In the past, such scare tactics have been used only by the paranormalists (Uri Geller's notorious [and failed] legal attempt to silence James Randi, for instance). Evans has thus placed himself beyond the pale of polite academic discourse. More seriously still, he attempts to propagandize influential non-scientists (with, for instance, civil dignitaries turning up at the bogus Santilli-Galilei academic award ceremony at his behest) and to influence political decisions about energy sourcing. His followers also occupy posts, at various levels, in the educational system; thus posing a threat to the optimum education of impressionable students. His inclusion in Wikipedia amounts to another attempt to 'baffle the gullible with science' and it is only fitting that he should limit himself to Marquis Who's Who entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.107.2 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are Mathsci and the previous anonymous vote are arguing for notability of Evans? --Crusio (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in the least. This is only the second edit of the anomymous IP, and should therefore be disqualified. Sreffler was one of the original contributors to the article, so was contacted by me as a matter of courtesy. He is familiar with the "zero point energy" crowd, as you could soon find out from his editing history; hence my comments. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I think Crusio is right (and Mathsci has misinterpreted him). While the anon is arguing for deletion of the article, if what he/she says is true Evans would probably be notable and it would not be appropriate to delete. The anon has missed precisely the point I was trying to make above: bad science is not at all a justification for deleting an article. We want good, solid NPOV articles on bad science precisely to counter attempts to baffle people with propaganda elsewhere. The important issues here are whether Evans is actually notable, and whether information about him is verifiable. If there is independent media coverage of him taking legal action against detractors, propagandizing non-scientists, etc. then he is notable and these things should be covered in the article.

I am a bit uncomfortable that this AfD was initiated by Evans's request. Take a hypothetical example: Imagine someone intent on promoting a false image of himself and his work and using propaganda. Such a person might well be unhappy with Wikipedia's NPOV treatment, and might prefer to have WP say nothing rather than reveal things he might not want revealed. In such a case we would not be doing the public a service by complying with the person's request to delete his biography.--Srleffler (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say he was notable as an academic; and notability is never established on wikipedia as the result of a posting by an anonymous SPA. The criteria are WP:V and WP:RS. The AfD was initiated by a complicated chain of events, which involved among other things Evans blanking the article (as Carrot18), possibly sending emails to WP, followed by administrative intervention on the article itself. Only the statements of 't Hooft were left in the article, as Daniel and Crusio had removed everything else. [19] [20][21][22] The primary purpose of BLPs is not as debunking pages for fringe theories by scientific nonentities. I took the trouble to locate academic sources which showed the science was hopelessly flawed: some time back I included the external link to 't Hooft's editorial (replacing a previous debunking page withdrawn by 't Hooft) and had quite recently included four articles, reviewed in MR, pointing out irretrievable errors in Evans' mathematics. [23] However, his academic career and his subsequent web presence fail notability in the sense of WP:PROF, as the majority of participants in this debate here have pointed out. Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Even if this BLP is deleted, anybody is free to write a non-biographical article on Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory, already listed on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, using as sources Evans' published work (his books), its published application to the motionless electromagnetic generator and the published criticisms already mentioned here. Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An interesting parallel can be found in this AfD, where people are arguing that someone is notable because somebody else published an article (not three or more as is the case here) to show that someone's work is flawed... Note that I am arguing in favor of deletion in both cases, though. --Crusio (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Frankly, I'm a little surprised when I looked for sources that I couldn't find more since I've heard of Evans. Evans is arguably not a willing public figure in the sense that all he is doing is publishing his personal theory and nothing more. Thus, his request for deletion should be given some weight. Simply being an academic may not put you into the category of willing public figure. Given that Evans is of borderline notability and is not a public figure, deletion for seems reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete: Self-publicist at best. --AlisonW (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Payne

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. It only has a single award that is not enough to establish notability. Awards like that are generally covered in the main article. Without enough coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tyler Perry's House of Payne. Violates WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR, both of which are very poor reasons for a WP:SPINOUT. As the actor got an award for this role, there is a certain notability, but the award can be (and already is) covered in the main article. No prejudice against recreation if someone wants to write a proper article on him with real-world information (casting, development, reception) that doesn't fit in the main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider a merge. The major character in a major series, so everything written about the series will discuss him also--there is no requirement for the works doing so to be primarily about him; the details can of course be taken appropriately from the preferred RS for this, the work itself. And there is no reason why a single award if significant is not enough for notability--the assertion that it would not be is unsupported by policy or practice here. This article has an interesting history. It was first boldly redirected by the nominator, without prior discussion. Since it was the major character & I myself am I reverted, the second step. According to WP policy this is to be followed by discussion on the talk page of the articles concerned; I myself am not familiar with the series and am going only by the articles involved. The nom. ignored that, and brought it here instead. This is an outright abuse of the AfD process--rather than discuss a redirect on the place concerned, it is brought to a different place, to discuss deletion. Clear example of forum shopping. If i weren't too personally involved in these discussions, I would consider closing this as the wrong place for the discussion. DGG (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A few days ago,[24] you disapproved of TTN "continu[ing] to nominate 5 to 10 articles for deletion without considering the possibility of merge or redirect". Now you say it's abuse to do an AfD even after his considering a merger+redirect. That isn't cool. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some form of discussion is generally a good idea, per WP:BRD. Hobit (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - to follow, up, there is more than one way to do it wrong. After one does something --any editing, not just a merge--and someone else reverts in good faith, the only proper course is to discuss. If one had known it would be controversial, I think it would have been better to discuss first, but if one thinks that nobody will object, it's fine to be bold--I sometimes make bold redirects for articles myself. But once it is reverted or objected to, and one wishes to press the point, one needs to follow through with the third step, discuss. And the place to discuss is the talk page of the article. All the more so if one took the option of using BRD in a case where one ought to know it is not uncontroversial. There is a reason for BRD--it will at least provoke discussion from opponents. But one has to be willing to make the effort to have a good faith discussion oneself. When I've objected nominating for deletion without considering merge or delete, that means that if merge or delete is a realistic possibility and you do not want it, one should address it in the argument. If one did want it one shouldn't have brought it here to AfD at all. DGG (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major character, major series. Significant award to the actor for playing this character. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Given that there was a notable award given for the portrayal of the character keeping seems optimal. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do people ever actually think about weight when saying something like that? Do you really think that we need a unnecessary regurgitation of plot and original research just because the actor won a single award that fits right in the main article? TTN (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major character in a notable sitcom, I'm not seeing any OR, it seems to be referenced to the show which is fine. Primary sources are obviously best for character back story. RMHED (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character clearly establishes notability and the article isn't lacking in citations or content. UniversalBread (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This might be too little, too late, but I just don't see individual notability here. If there was an award for this character, wouldn't that go towards the notability of the actor, not the character? Any descriptions of the character come from episode guides, which aren't in-depth independent coverage. This should be redirected to the main series page. TN‑X-Man 15:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identified (Vanessa Hudgens song)

Apparent hoax article. Song is certainly a real track, but no reliable sources for the information here. No sources in article. I can't find any official sources supporting any of the release information. The cover at the time I am nominating this is a cover I have already nominated for deletion as a hoax, as it falsely claims to be the cover of the Japanese album, not the American single. When the article was created, it was created with a fan-art cover found here..—Kww(talk) 11:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources to verify what's written here. This is the only reliable looking website that outright says that Identified in the next single (says it is in Cosmo Girl magazine), but it's vague. I can't find any official information backing up any of the claims in the article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is obviously fake. The single cover is obviously fan made and it's different from Hudgens' other singles, since she uses CENTURY GOTHIC. And there aren't any sources available. And it peaked at number 98, for your information. Kikkokalabud (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bogus chart positions, totally incorrect info all about. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fake or not, there's the issue of WP:CRYSTAL.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good song, but isn't need this song have her own page. You can't look for a reference. Like Fabrictramp said, there's the issue of WP:CRYSTAL.--Pedrovip | talk to me 16:14, 12 October 2008

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

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

Lieutenant Bad Apple

Contested proposed deletion. A short film uploaded to youtube as an entry for a competition. Original research, fails Wikipedia:Notability. See also the discussion on the talk page for the article. Jll (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity piece by the looks of it. Non notable and entirely OR. --neon white talk 12:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Take your pick: not original publisher of thought, not for plot summaries, lack of verifiable sources, vanity, processed meat from Hormel. MuZemike (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and destroy the hard drive it was stored on. O.R. and simply not any more notable than the multitude of other videos on youtube. Amazing how of these we get all the way to AFD. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being popular on Youtube is not notability on Wiki. Has this film won awards? Has this film been reviewed in WP:RS? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NN. We66er (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Anthony

Delete. Unreferenced, non-notable local government politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN guideline. WWGB (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's some references on the talk page, but they don't provide conclusive proof of notability as some of them are just mentions of the person. Could probably satisfy WP:N with another source or 2 that covers Mr Anthony significantly. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a local politician doesn't make you automatically notable, and (as far as I can see) the links given on the talk page are just local media: local officials around my hometown of 800 people are in the local news rather often, but that doesn't make them notable. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply being a councillor in a sacked council is not notable. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Michellecrisp, as far as I can see this person has not done anything noteworthy or been the recipient of nontrivial third party coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Rapetime

Delete. Unreferenced, non-notable cocktail, contested prod. Wikipedia is not a cocktail guide. WWGB (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no ghits except ones related to the Wikipedia article, fails Wikipedia:Notability Jll (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've never heard of this thing. I think it may simply something someone made up one day, probably more recently than the date given in the article. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additionally, the recipe is for the well-known Black Russian. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a not notable neo. And I thought that black russians had milk in them? (ie: then add a dash of coke and you have a Colorado Bulldog). Then again, I haven't worked in a bar for a few years now. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - On reflection, this strikes me as being likely to be a speedy candidate. 1) The obviously deliberately controversial title/cocktail name seems to have been made up simply to splash the word 'rape' across Wikipedia in inappropriate contexts - a violation of WP:POINT; 2) The cartoon series referenced in the (incoherent) etymology doesn't exist, suggesting that this is a complete hoax and thus vandalism; 3) The person named in the etymology is (if real, of course) being libelled - making this an attack page. And of course we have the usual tell-tale references to 'rumour', etc. I declare the article to be a steaming heap of horseshit. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then speedy tag it and see what happens. Or declare WP:SNOW and see if an admin notices and agrees. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not necessarily arguing for notability, but I've seen this served by name in at least three student bars (in different cities). And regarding point 2, Alex, you obviously didn't go to the trouble of typing Morning Glory into Google before proclaiming that it doesn't exist. Aquae (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy or otherwise). It is not only a Black Russian (above is thinking of a White Russian), but almost al the background info sounds like a hoax.Yobmod (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of former child actors from the Czech Republic

A list with one member. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable and highly trivial list. doktorb _words^deeds 10:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Really, that's all you can say. There's one person listed here, so it's not a list. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 11:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List is completely useless when it's just the one member. --Banime (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now there are 3 names. How many names does it take to keep a list? For An Angel (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are they notable names? With citations? Could they have acceptable stand-alone articles with this article name as a category? doktorb _words^deeds 17:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all 3 questions. For An Angel (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~. Good attempt at rescue, but it seems like a very useless intersection of 4 criteria (former, child, actor, Czech). If no sources make this connection, i don't see why we should. There must be a list of child actors article, Czech members can be included there until the list becomes too long, and the lines of splitting it are decided on the talk page.Yobmod (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep, as the List of child actors redirects to articles about the US only. Otherstuffexists is not a keep reason, but all these lists need to be sorted out together, which is too complicated for an AfD debate. Either a merge needs to be made, or all "List of (timeframe) (age) (job) from (place)" articles are non-trivial, or all should be deleted. I changed the redirect to the relevant catergory, there are 30 of these lists already.Yobmod (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just so everyone knows, back in May I helped to split the articles List of child actors & List of former child actors because they were getting too big. Those two articles were redirected to List of current child actors from the United States & List of former child actors from the United States and all the actors that weren't American were moved to their own lists by country. See the discussion from Talk:List of current child actors from the United States and all of the new lists under Category:Lists of child actors by nationality. I would rather not have to merge them all again as it took me days to split them in the first place. For An Angel (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (1) Czech Republic was established on Jan 1 1993, so by definition there aren't very many former child actors. (2) There were hundreds to thousands Czech child actors and the present 3 names are anything but representative. This type of lists should be removed from Wikipedia, this is task for a database query against IMDb. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question You said that by definition there aren't that many former child actors from the Czech Republic but then you say that there were hundreds to thousands of them? Well, which one is it? Are you also saying that all of the lists under Category:Lists of child actors by nationality should be deleted because this is a job for IMDb? I'll also ask my previous question again. How many names would it take to keep this list? For An Angel (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dariush Kashani

Unremarkable minor actor. No feature roles in movie or television. Google news search finds passing mention (cast list) in a few theatre reviews. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD was blanked and replaced with "To call someone an unremarkable actor sounds like defamation of character. Please remove these words and this entry. It's malicious." by article creator Gingerhillinc (talk · contribs). I'll leave a note on their talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a longer than usual listing of roles on IMDB, but as far as I can see they are all minor bit parts and the like. I strongly doubt that he meets the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete can't find anything more than passing mentions in sources (with the possible exception of this, but it still doesn't provide more than a sentence discussing the him). Hut 8.5 09:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability. And, for what it's worth, the article creator has been indef blocked for making legal threats over this, and also has some serious COI problems. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While the creator was blocked, they have been unblocked, but based on comments on my talk page I doubt they will be returning to Wikipedia. In any case, that shouldn't be a factor in whether or not to keep or delete this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; article is completely unsourced, appears to have been authored by the subject's publicist, manager, or agent, and other than a list of minor roles on IMDB, is unverifiable by reference to mainstream reliable sources. The only things I see are personal web pages or social/networking sites like Plaxo or Classmates. --MCB (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Loyola College in Maryland. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola College Rugby Football Club

This is about a "club" team - it is different from other college sports because it is indepedent of the NCAA and the university's athletic department. See http://www.loyola.edu/athletic/ - the "Intercollegiate Athletics" link goes to the teams supported by athletic department. Rugby is in the "Recreational Sports" section and is a club team.

I cannot find any outside media sources devoting any attention to this team

Perhaps most important, I do not see any other Wikipedia articles about other teams.

In summary I feel it fails notability. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria.--Boffob (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you are looking for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bc_rugby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfield_University_Men%27s_Rugby_Football_Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemson_Rugby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:College_rugby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_rugby Interzil (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I stand corrected. I apologize for that. There are still no outside sources included in this article to assert notability. The one external reference says nothing about the Loyola Rugby team. The loyala.edu links say nothing about the Rugby team either. Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Loyola College in Maryland, the content makes sense there and can be expanded until there are sufficient reliable sources to justify an independent article and the redirect there is useful to readers. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rugby is not a sanctioned NCAA sport, and is played, as a result, by clubs at the college level. It is notable for that fact, and Loyola's rugby club has a claim of notability on that basis. I would suggest an expansion tag be placed on the article for more sourcing.Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So every single club team at every single University is notable enough for a Wikipedia article? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Loyola College in Maryland. Content can be expanded there until such time that sufficient third party reliable sources exist to justify its own article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Loyola College in Maryland, obviously. TerriersFan (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Run checks on the cited sources to check for legitimacy. If poor, edit. The Loyola College in Maryland article is very poor, and it will only burden it.Interzil (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Special K(KoЯn flakes) 16:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rom baro

Lacks notability, possible hoax and no references. Dicdef. Quick Google search turns up a few results, but not enough for a decent article. Belongs in Wiktionary if notable, but not here. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination because it is decently sourced and bigger than a dicdef, and to save this discussion dragging out any longer. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 16:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources; probable hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced but even if it was sourced (and notable!), belongs in Wiktionary. MvjsTalking 10:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the library, folks. Shii (tock) 05:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I guess I need to respond to the lazy argument that this is non-notable. The concept of a "big man" in pre-industrial hierarchies is taught in Anthro 101 and the rom baro is a prime example. As all cultures are different it should not be merged, although maybe a general article about the hierarchies of Roma society should be created. There are no Google hits because Roma are severely understudied. Shii (tock) 05:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting because sources were added at the last moment by Shii. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 16.

Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the sources just show that this is a WP:Dictdef.Yobmod (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with rationale already provided above by Universal Cereal Bus (talk · contribs), Mvjs (talk · contribs), Stifle (talk · contribs), and Yobmod (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, already more than a dicdef, and 61 Google Books hits show it is obviously expandable into an article about the concept rather than the word. (And even so, encyclopedic articles on words are perfectly acceptable here.) —An gr 15:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The discussion, verified to a source, of how a baro is selected is encyclopedic content, not part of a dictionary definition. The article needs expansion, not deletion. Alternatively, it could be merged to an article about the hierarchal structures in Roma culture, or a potential new section of Romani society and culture. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update – I've added two more sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a dictionary definition which at best warrants one or two sentences in the Roma people article. Either way, WP:WINAD firmly applies. JBsupreme (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you admit the possiblity that this article can become more than a dicef? 210.134.98.134 (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There won't be any problem recreating it later with more information. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has plenty of information already to avoid deletion. Even in its current state this article doesn't come close to violating WP:WINAD. This article is no dicdef. —An gr 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a section of Big man (anthropology) just like the one on Papua New Guinea Big man system section in that article.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hey, the content is has now been sourced. Thanks to whoever did it. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delist this nomination from list of India-related deletion discussions - nothing to do with India here. --GPPande talk! 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Återförödelse (album)

Delete. Another nonnotable album from the band without an article. Fails WP:MUSIC. Wolfer68 (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Reason #498 why I want A7 expanded to albums. Band has no article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to the third power - non-notable album by a non-notable act on a non-notable label (yes, I challenge the assertion of notability of the label on its article). B.Wind (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emer O'Loughlin

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Emer O'Loughlin

Delete. The article does not indicate why the deceased, or her murder, were notable. WWGB (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not editing this page to include much more information as yet, I am new to Wikipedia editing. This page is a joint effort between three people, all of whom, close to the deceased. As for notable, a case such as this is notable depending on where you live, if you live in the villages or towns of the Republic of Ireland, everyone knows of the case, it hits the communities hard. I will be sure to include a line stating that if you allow the page to be left live for just a while longer. The whole county of Clare in Ireland heard of this case and realise that this is not an everyday occurrence to them, its the sort of case which just takes you by Storm, despite the troubles in Ireland. Thank You, —Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingShooter06 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you are all "close to the deceased" then perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. WWGB (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken on board the points on that page, personally, I have been trying to put across a neutral point of view, another editor is not. I realise it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote cases for the benefit of one side only. It is difficult to be completely unbiased, however, I have agreed with the other two editors, that I will write the rest of the page, seen as the only information to stay on the page was posted by myself. I hope you can appreciate that it takes a great deal to write about something such as this. Thank you for letting it stay live for that bit longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingShooter06 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Strong~~ Keep By searching google news using ALL dates] you find 8 wp:rs hits. This passes notability and reliable sources. The rest can be fixed with tags and perhaps helping the new editor out. Notability policy says that subject must be verifiable, NOT verified. Again, that's what tags are for, not AFD. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The last media interest was more than two years ago. Sadly, people are murdered every day. What puts this incident above WP:ONEEVENT? WWGB (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of coverage in Ireland. Maybe. I understand that the article is thin and the fact that is unsolved is the main reason for the coverage, but with several wp:rs sources, it seems to pass. If nothing else, WWGB says cover the event, not the person, which would mean a move to different title, not a delete. I'm not claiming to be ironclad about this (and fully understand your argument), but this is what I am reading in the policy here when taken literally. I am all ears to hear other precedents and learn something new. Is there another article it can be merged into, if it is borderline? PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

other comment Read the intro for JonBenét Ramsey which says that the main notability is the longevity and the media interest. This article isn't at THAT level, but where is the threshold? idunno. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is no a memorial. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 07:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no particular encyclopedic notability: neither for the person nor for the murder case. `'Míkka >t 08:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article could use expansion and more detail, but it's clearly notable. Fumoses (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E applies here. Marasmusine (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. I don't see anything in this article that would make this case noteworthy among the many tragic unsolved murder cases that exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Senses

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Odd Senses

Requesting delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No sources and couldn't find anything that confirms its release Wolfer68 (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails music and crystal ball policies doktorb _words^deeds 09:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ww2censor (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Also issues with promo/ver/nn. Guliolopez (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Original Author: Dates of recording referenced from official PsyOpus site and one song is online. I believe this confirms the album's existence. Dan.noye (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan.noye (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - previous post confirms that the article is crystal balling. Until a definitive release date is announced by the label or the act, the recording does not officially exist. B.Wind (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. unsourced Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatifilius Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache

non-notable WWI captain, whose dubious claim to fame is having a long name. I can't find it now but I know we have an article listing unusual names, unless this too has been deleted for bordering on trivial original research. doktorb _words^deeds 08:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual personal names is probably what you're thinking of, he doesn't appear there. the wub "?!" 09:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable apart from his magniloquent name, and the references don't confirm that. JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Guinness World Record holder for longest surname. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article doesn't say that, in fact it says it's a "common misconception" and his surname was actually just "Tollemache-Tollemache." JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern -schplenden -schlitter -crasscrenbon -fried -digger -dangle -dungle -burstein -von -knacker -thrasher -apple -banger -horowitz -ticolensic -grander -knotty -spelltinkle -grandlich -grumblemeyer -spelterwasser -kürstlich -himbleeisen -bahnwagen -gutenabend -bitte -eine -nürnburger -bratwustle -gerspurten -mit -zweimache -luber -hundsfut -gumberaber -shönendanker -kalbsfleisch -mittler -raucher von Hautkopft of Ulm is not on that list. MuZemike (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've looked into this a bit more, and it seems that the subject is definitely famous for the misconception (found in sources like older Guinness Books of Records, eg 1974) that the last six words of his name were a single surname. The claim may be false, but it's notably false. I'm sticking with 'keep'. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commment You're saying 'keep' because of a misconception thirty years ago ? The person himself is not notable, the story behind his name IS. That surely fails notability rules. doktorb _words^deeds 17:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Having looked at List of unusual personal names, I'd definitely endorse a merge (and the inclusion of LSDOFfT-TdOP Tollemache-Tollemache's curiously named siblings) in that article, as an alternative to retention. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only trivially notable. Optional redirect to List of unusual personal names. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to subject's father, Ralph Tollemache. Any biographical detail of import can be added to the list there. Choess (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Area Asian Unity

I previously nominated this article for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Author responded by removing speedy tag, but, to be fair, got rid of all the obvious marketing phrases. However, the claims to notability are still very weak. I put a notability tag on but help off further action until the author had a chance to properly assert notabilty. Nothing has been done in the last two weeks. No hits on Google other than Wikipedia article. The only argument I can see in its defence is that the early ad-ridden version[25] there's a list of "BAAU accomplishments" which says all of the events were recorded in newspapers. That might just qualify as a claim to notability, but since it doesn't say which newspapers they were I can't comment any further. I'll leave this up to you lot. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds a worthy organisation, but no evidence of notability. JohnCD (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find notability in gsearch or gnews search. Only hits are wiki/mirrors and the organization's own site.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Fabrictramp. Article does nothing to assert notability. MvjsTalking 09:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Cronise

No decent information, all claims which can be challenged. No information readily available. Andre666 (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Sword. I see him mentioned plenty within the band, but no individual notability outside, no solo interviews, etc. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no reliable sources to speak of. JBsupreme (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom, as a non-plausible search term. Fails to establish notability outside of the band per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. There is a fairly strong consensus that the article's contents should be merged somewhere and the article should be redirected somewhere, and I would encourage a discussion on the talk page as to exactly where that should be. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chance and Community Chest cards

The whole article is mostly unsourced, (the references at the bottom don't point to any place in the text) the middle 80% of it is listcruft on what each card contains. The lead is really the only relevant part to the page, and that can be merged into a section at Monopoly (game) CTJF83Talk 07:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, and besides I can see no basis for using so much space on this particular aspect of the game vs. others. WillOakland (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a good decruftifying and sourcing, thats all. The general popularity of monopoly has caused numerous element's of the game, such as the chance cards, to assume greater cultural importance in the United States (and possibly elsewhere) that equivalent elements in similar games. Horselover Frost (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any evidence that it has "assume[d] greater cultural importance"? They would both be fine having a section on the Monopoly page. CTJF83Talk 15:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Horselover. The Community Chest card has also inspired a popular T-Shirt. DollyD (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MuZemike (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge selectively per WP:N and WP:IINFO. "inspired a popular t-shirt" is not a compelling argument since I can go to cafe-press today and be "inspired to create" a t-shirt on anything. Should I use the "New Jersey Girls aren't Trash, Trash gets Picked Up" shirts and write an article about girls from New Jersey? The preponderance of the article is devoted to what the cards read in each edition. The material in the lead, presuming that it is sourced to the reference at the bottom, would be perfect for the main Monopoly article. But as is, the article is not inside our inclusion guidelines. Protonk (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is game guide material if I ever saw it. Further, I think this is probably a copyright violation. Hobit (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not pass Go Proof that not all trivia is interesting, and a reminder of why trivia sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. The article is apparently about former versions of those orange and yellow cards in previous editions of Monopoly. Happily, there is a Monopoly Wiki where minutiae like this can be preserved [26], and maybe this "history" can live on somewhere else. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Monopoly itself is culturally significant, and Chance and Community Chest cards are one of the most significant aspects of the game. Many chance-based games (not just board games) use cards drawn from the top of a deck, and that phenomenon all started with the Chance and Community Chest cards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to imagine how poker was played before Monopoly started the trend of drawing cards from the top of the deck. Mandsford (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, they may be important to the game, but not important enough for their own article on Wikipedia. CTJF83Talk 19:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as game guide material. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the non-game guide material to teh Monopoly article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriate materials to Chance card and Community Chest cards, then delete this article. Redirection is not an option as this would have two equally valid targets. This article cannot stand per WP:NOT, plus there is a definite lack of sourcing. B.Wind (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal generating software

Article seems to be a personal essay with more opinion than fact. Cites no reliable sources. Even with major cleanup, article cites no facts that can be verified. Delete TheRingess (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first two paragraphs do not contain opinions, the last two do. Would you be happy if I deleted the last two paragraphs?

Nearly every statement in the first paragraph can be easily verified. A minority of the statements in the second paragraph are of such a nature as to be not so easily checked.

I have cleaned up the article somewhat in line with your comments. What do you think?

Do you really think there is no need for an article on this topic? Soler97 (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay (original research). A list article could be useful. WillOakland (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've re-written and tidied up the article so it is less of an essay. The list of programs is supported by a reference (but perhaps not a reliable source); the list of features is still OR. At present I'm neutral on whether the article should be deleted or not, but I could come down off the fence if someone can provide more references. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagging for rescue, as I believe the subject is notable and encyclopedic, even if the article in question needs work. Jclemens (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This topic could be a useful index or a notable topic and there is no reason that it can't cite sources. It was nominated for deletion just over half an hour after creation, while it was still being frequently edited by the original author. I dislike AfD being used on stubs that are obviously being improved. This being said, I'd probably be inclined to agree with deletion if the page looked identical a month from now. --Karnesky (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Give an article a chance. I agree with the above saying that there has to be sources out there for this. MuZemike (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks saveable to me, though it needs a lot of work still. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May have looked like an essay at time of nomination, but now it looks like a list and can be kept per WP:LIST. --Itub (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author, I am quite happy with its current list form. It won't win any awards, but so what? It seems informative, neutral and to the point. What puzzles me is what reasons people have for wanting to delete the article in its present form. Surely not every 'reasonable' and uncontentious statement needs a citation? Soler97 (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Soler97 Pretty much, yes. Wikipedia's verifiability policy says "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". At the moment the list of fractal generating programs is attributed to a source (although not necessarily a reliable source), but the list of features of such programs is not attributed, which contravenes the policy. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. It seems to me that none of the claims of the article is "likely to be challenged". No-one has made a challenge so far, and I would be very surprised if anyone made a challenge in good faith, unless it was on a minor technicality or clarification. The article represents basic common knowledge for people who have used fractal generators. Surely, basic common knowledge on a well-defined subject that is easily checked by anyone who wants to do so does not require references from published sources. An article on soap does not need to cite references for the fact that many people use soap to wash. Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Soler97 (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add sources, dead boring but notable enough to be written about, add sources. Here are a few online searchable books.[27] -- Banjeboi 16:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded language

An original research essay. The article says that "loaded language" is language that appeals to emotion rather than logic and then goes on to give some examples. What it doesn't do is establish that this is a notable expression. Redddogg (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Widespread usage of the terms "loaded language/phrase/expression" is easily verified, but that is dictionary material. This article is a series of editor-chosen examples padded out with two unrelated subjects. WillOakland (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but maybe move to Wikiversity where it would be more suitable. Original research is accepted there. --Walmwutter (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Notable term (unlike "num") but needs verifiable sources. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but strongly advise a complete rewrite. Needs more verifiable sources and references. 76.117.235.39 (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is evidently notable. Per our editing policy, the need for more work upon the article is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never Heard of It

Article about an unsigned band. The article contains some assertions of notability (numbers of CD) but they are not supported by any reliable sources (short blurbs in directories and self-published info only). Falls far from WP:MUSIC, and fails verifiability. — Coren ^(talk) 05:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources about this band CTJF83Talk 06:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. While I hate to say it about a band whose music I've got on my iPod, I've just spent an hour trying to dig up sources for the international touring and so forth. The closest I've been able to get to reaching WP:MUSIC is that they won an Electronic Arts competition in 2007 that I can't find much of anything else about. Beyond that, unfortunately, nothing. Emo delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are plenty of assertions of notability and plenty of sources out there to support them. Problem is, none seem to satisfy WP:RS. I'm sure there's gonna be some out there somewhere, just a case of finding them! Unless any can be found, I can't really see the article staying. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Unsigned band. The primary claim here is their claimed number of CD sales, but when examined that doesn't hold up: it says that's their total number of sales, and divided by the 7 releases mentioned it averages out to less thn 3% of what they'd need to have a gold record in the US. And even that weak claim isn't sourced, nor is anything else in the article. Note that the article says they're split/defunct, and while that certainly isn't cause to delete on its own it also means no additional notability is forthcoming. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bit off-key in regard to WP:MUSIC. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribe (series 1)

Appears to be original research with no citations aside from a single external link at the bottom of the page. This article appears to have little context and reads as if it comes directly from a fanzine. If the unsourced information is removed, there would be nothing left, and the equally unsourced List of The Tribe seasons has a summary already for the first season. I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same problems:

B.Wind (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect All to The Tribe (TV series) CTJF83Talk 06:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - they're all plot summary; and redirect seems pointless - who's going to search on "The Tribe (series 1}" rather than "The Tribe"? JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per JohnCD. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. no redirect, as the parantheses make it a non-vialve search term.Yobmod (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breathing Room

Article tagged in May for notability issues. "Citations" section does not establish notability of film, does not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (films). Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds notable to me, but you can't know that it grossed $500,000 cos there's nothing there to back it up. That rules out its only claim to notability. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Temp~~ Weak Keep per improvements noted below ~~as I am giving the article a sandblasting and major cleanup.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- With apolgies, I have been away on projects and though have had internet access, have been away from my home resources. Will sandblast this evening and see if it can be made properly encyclopedic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have finished cleanup, sourcing, wikifying, adding external links and reviews, etc. The article is better. Needs a few more tweaks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There issue here appears to be the reliability (or not) of the sources. Some discussion of this would helpful for closing this either way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources listed are okay, for a low budget horror movie. That plus the festival listings make me say the article is good enough to Keep. raven1977 (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Andrew Roth

Fails WP:PROF. No third party references. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An associate professor of mathematics does not seem very notable. Let him do some more stuff before writing an article on him. Redddogg (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He works in algebraic geometry, which is perhaps the toughest area of pure math in terms of obtaining new results and where people do not publish a lot. I checked MathSciNet and he has 7 papers listed there (which does seem to be a bit low even for algebraic geometry). Two of them are in top-notch journals: one in Inventiones Mathematicae [28] and one in Crelle's Journal [29] That's very good but, in the absence of additional evidence, not good enough for passing WP:PROF. Citation hits, both in googlescholar and in mathscinet, are pretty low and neither the WP article nor his webpage give any other information (such as honors/awards, journal editorships, etc) that might indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not give any evidence of passing WP:PROF nor can I find such evidence elsewhere. As Nsk92 reports, the publication record looks slim. I'm sure Queens U. had good reason for promoting him to associate but that's not enough to persuade me that he's notable enough to maintain an article on him here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the article makes no assertions of notability, and the Wikipedians above, who are skilled at data dumping in this field, find none. On a side-note, Gregory G Smith was created by the same editor from the same template, with the only real claim of notability the Aisenstadt Prize, and might stand looking at from someone who is more familiar with the field.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Quarrymen. Nothing there to merge, really. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dissenters

Despite initial enthusiasm for any article related to the Beatles, it appears from the paucity of sources that "The Dissenters" was not a functioning group, and certainly not a musical group. It was a nickname they gave themselves but they were never a notable functioning entity. Propose deleting and merging into the articles on the "members" and the pub that bears the plaque.. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable group CTJF83Talk 06:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per nom: this is less than a stub-class even, lacking sources etc. Could be easily added to pertinent articles as an additional note. Coldmachine^Talk 07:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to The Quarrymen, assuming that there are WP:RS for that content. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If merged, add a hatnote to Quarrymen about dissenters. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge An afternoon booze-up idea. Not anywhere near enough for an article.--andreasegde (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illmind

Non-notable producer. Has worked with a few notable artist but not on any notable tracks. Tagged for notability and expansion since March 2008. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Worked with notable artists but nothing himself. We wouldn't give an article to the guy who produced Nirvana's lost demo tape, Echo and the Bunnymen's flop and Cream's first single which failed to chart, so this one should go. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep, producer for Little Brother, Sean Price, Boot Camp Clik, El Da Sensei, Supastition, Akrobatik etc. The fact that in this context producer means creator of the musical track is just one of many things wrong with KoЯn flakes' analogy above. WP:MUSIC doesn't say anything about producers of any stripe, and can be overruled by common sense in any case. 86.44.31.100 (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

illmind reviewed in in the NYT illmind in Scheme illmind in prefixmag illmind in Akrobatik review in Seattle Post Intelligencer blog 86.44.31.100 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Times piece is a two sentence writeup of his Jay-Z remix album, in an article that writes up twelve different Jay-Z remix albums. Post-Intelligencer link is similarly trivial. As mentioned in the nom, there is no indication that any of the tracks he's produced are notable—working with a notable artist does not transfer notability to the producer. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is no indication that any of the tracks he's produced are notable He produced (that is, produced and created the musical tracks) on half the last Little Brother album; am I to understand this was the non-notable half?

Early in his career he released an album under his own name on bbe / beat generation. Had he continued in this vein he would be notable per WP:Music as an artist in his own right; he would also have close to zero impact on hip hop as opposed to now. 86.44.27.95 (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that any one track on that album is particularly notable. If you'd like to show me that I'm mistaken please provide more information (chart success, etc.). If his work on the album was particularly notable, then surely there must be plenty of media coverage lauding his work, singing his praises. Similarly, if his impact on hip hop is so great, where is the coverage? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that his impact is truly great, it's that it's much more significant (reaching many more thousands) than if he had continued in a vein (making producer albums under his own name) that would have made him compliant with WP:MUSIC as an artist. And it's not that you're mistaken insofar as you are trying to match him to various strictures in WP:MUSIC (as artist, as songwriter, as composer) but not looking at the body of work (which is to me self-evident as notable). Coverage will be along the lines outlined above unless he a) goes back to releasing under his own name b) dies or c) becomes a superstar producer (of which there are few). 86.44.27.95 (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edgardo Torres-Caballero

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO. Has 13 Google News hits, but these seem all to be articles where he is interviewed about a Government project (e.g. [30]), no articles in part or completely about him. This is also indicated by the only 28 distinct Google hits about him[31]. Article has also serious COI problems, but that in itself is no reason for deletion. Fram (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like self-promotion and very little claim to notability. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infiltration Unit Zeta

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it seems appropriate to use some of the material in this article as the basis for a new section in The Zeta Project article on the main character. Jeremiah (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_work 03:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep main character in a notable series (if only just notable) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reason for the character to have an article. Notability is not inherited from the parent topic. It has to be established on its own using reliable third party sources. TTN (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not covered in third party sources. No sources cited. No context provided for the reader (I certainly can't tell from the lede what this is or what shows it was on). Zero Gnews hits (all dates archive search). Web searches are primarily fansites and mirrors. No book hits. Can't see a reason to keep it. Protonk (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article doesn't establish notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of third-party coverage. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cine TAM

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

There is absolutely no evidence that this is notable. Unless this theater has become some kind of local icon (which, because I do not read Portugese, I cannot determine from sources), there is no reason for it to have its own article. As an example, consider Regal Entertainment Group, which is definitely notable. But do we have an article for every one of their movie theaters--despite the fact that most are likely to have some kind of local newspaper coverage? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - TallNapoleon, Cine TAM is one entity with one theater; it is owned by the TAM Airlines company. Regal Entertainment is one entity with multiple locations across the United States. Both articles cover the entities; it is that there are no individual articles for all of Regal's locations.
- Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) says: "Many companies have chains of local stores or franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable—for instance, your local McDonald's. Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that isn't true for the chain in general, we should not have articles on such individual stores." - But Cine TAM is about the theater company itself and its single (one) theater together. If this becomes a chain or if it was a chain "Cine TAM" would be about the firm in general. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a reminder the notability of companies page says: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content." - I have found Brazilian newspaper sources covering Cine TAM, so this is why I say that it is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company is notable Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is this particular cinema? TallNapoleon (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cinema company operates one cinema; the cinema company is notable, and this article is about both the cinema company and its sole cinema. If the company operated multiple cinemas the article would state what is common in those cinemas. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I live in São Paulo, Brazil, and this teather is notable in my city. This article also include reliable third party sources. I don't see any problems. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe most shopping malls in Brazil have a movie theater from different companies like Cinemark, United Cinemas International or any other. This theatre has nothing special, there are thousands of movie theatres like those in São Paulo. Also, there's no article on pt-wiki. If it was a company with theatres in several malls I believe it would be notable as a company. But it is limited to only one mall. Maybe merge to TAM Airlines. Tosqueira (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tosqeira, do the other theaters that are not a part of Cinemark, UCI, etc. have articles in third party sources written about them? That is the criterion of the notability guideline I speak of above. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: a movie theater opening is often big news, locally, so yes, there probably WOULD be third party coverage of them. That doesn't mean that every local theater belongs on Wikipedia. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete CSD G3 - Obvious hoax. --Angelo (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granit Ahmetaj

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

I cannot find any pages online verifying the existence of this player. He is not listed on any Barcelona squad list that I've found (also see this empty google search for the official site and this similarly empty google search for soccerbase. Infact, a google search for his name brings up limited-to-no football related articles at all, and the google news search yields 0 results. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a hoax. National-football-teams.com draws a similar blank. Also, the claim regarding the £65m buyout clause from his Barca contract seems highly dubious for a player no-one's ever heard of! Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Giant Snowman 15:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Cassini

The subject of this article is a living person and he does not appear to meet notability standards. Also, if you look here, you will see that the article has been originally written (and by checking the history see that it has been substantially edited) by User:Seeplain. In the linked posting, Seeplain admits that he is writing about himself. He "thought it would be appropriate...to have (his) own Wiki entry." Deletion per WP:Notability and WP:Coatrack. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see how WP:Coatrack applies to this article. It is also true that this is largely an autobiography. However, WP:AUTO and WP:COATRACK are not necessarily reasons for outright deletion. So the question is notability, as usual. Cassini appears to have published articles himself in pretty respectable outlets and has also been discussed in third person, which is enough notability for me. The relevant references already appear in the article. Of course it should be improved by people who know something about the modern trends in road safety and that's why i added an "expert attention needed" tag to it, which was unfortunately removed. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is where we differ and why I have nominated for deletion. First, being an author does not automatically confer notability, no matter the outlet. Second, in my review of the references given I do not consider that the mention him in the "third person" in the manner that has been done is enough to establish notability. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and sourceable biography. The first few paragraphs need a vigorous planing for appropriate tone, but that's all it needs. --Lockley (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The rationale for the entry is that in the Wiki entry on Shared Space, Cassini is listed as one of five proponents. The other four have separate entries, so it seemed to make sense for there to be a separate entry for Cassini too, especially in view of his publications. This is an additional Guardian piece by him: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/21/congestioncharging.london Seeplain (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Seeplain, in the nomination above, I give information that I used to conclude that you are Martin Cassini. Since WP:AFD#How to discuss an Article for Deletion requests that people participating in the deletion discussion please disclose if you have a vested interest in the article, I will ask. Are you Martin Cassini? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response 1 - Is he a "proponent" of shared space of the same notability as the others listed in that article? I thought not. Two months ago, I researched that and could not find evidence of it. I tagged the entry of Martin Cassini in the list as needing a citation. This is beacuse all of the others on that list are on the official website for Shared Space. Martin Cassini is not. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response 2 - WP:Bio does not provide that inclusion in a list in an article in WP confers notability on the person. In fact it says "notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent". So only the opposite is true. If the biography of Martin Cassini is considered here to be notable enough for a WP article, then he would be notable enough to include in other articles. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response 3 - Being an author of articles on a subject does not confer notability. Per WP:BIO, there must be articles and sources which tell us about Martin Cassini in order for him to be considered notable. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The material involves a robust critique of standard traffic engineering practice, with humanitarian proposals for change, so a review by a traffic engineer is arguably irrelevant.Seeplain (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Clearly, a robust critique is not appropriate material for an article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response 4 - I thought it was self-evident that seeplain is Martin Cassini - made clear at the outset when I was seeking an Adopter. As stated, the motivation was that I saw myself listed as a shared space proponent. I asked an Adopter, Amire80, if a separate entry was warranted, and he thought it was. Then PennySpender came along, who disagrees. Obviously I will abide by whatever is decided. I have no vested interest as such, but I think I have developed new ground in this wide-ranging subject which is being absorbed into mainstream thinking and policy. Other 3rd party references perhaps worth mentioning: I have been quoted as a "traffic expert" by the Daily Express. The Observer Comment editor asked me for a piece which was published. The Evening Standard often contacts me for quotes, as do numerous radio stations. I am quoted and discussed in the forthcoming book, In Search of Elegance, by Matt May, and cited by Tom Vanderbilt as a “fellow traveller”. 91.125.217.6 (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jinx.com

AfDs for this article:

Non Notable, no sources - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 03:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've declined the speedy deletion as the article is not blatant spam. The references found in the previous AfD establish this website's notability. I've also found a couple more: San Diego Business Journal, Market Wire, and Philadelphia citypaper.net. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the above sources are significant enough to establish notability. A google news search is not in itself a proof of notability, it fact only one of the result is relevent (a press release and not independent), which suggests a lack of notability. The third makes no mention whatsoever of the webiste jinx.com, it is about an completely unrelated store and site (Jinxed Clothing not Jinx) Article lacks any sources. i'm not sure about advertising but appears to a small web store of no note. --neon white talk 12:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. I agree it isn't blatant spam, but it's definitely not notable, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:WEB — Also agree with being rather spamless, but that's the least of its worries. It reads like a website page, and it doesn't indicate any notability whatsoever. MuZemike (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N concerns and WP:RS. Mvjs Talking 06:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 10:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no one has seen fit to add what little sourcing exists to this article in the process of this AfD, it looks unlikely to attract enough attention to be worth retaining. Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of NPN Partners

A list of partners of a red linked company Schuym1 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to National Performance Network and expand into a full article, if this organization is notable. Otherwise, delete. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Company doesn't seem to warrant an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally, a list-of-partners article would be unacceptable even for something obviously notable (note no List of Microsoft partners or List of Google partners for example), and even moreso when the partnering organisation doesn't warrant an article. Nearly all the entries being redlinks further underscores non-notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Starblind. MvjsTalking 08:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2-5, 8, and 11. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Fade

Not notable; author's discussion on talk page amounts to same AndrewHowse (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Despite my personal point of view of Christian bands, I was torn on this one. I think notability can be said to be borderline, when reviewing the contest won and some mentions of that fact in multiple sources. I tend to support weak keep, but I think it needs to be cleansed of all the fan-speak and suchlike mentions. Imho it would benefit us more to keep it for now, but I admit that my arguments not much stronger than the creator's. So Why 08:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing how the band meets any of the 12 basic criteria for WP:MUSIC. I don't see the Ellio's Pizza Rock Star Challenge Online as a "major music competition." None of the sources provided move beyond "trivial coverage" IMO. The author states on the talk page that his main source of info about the band is "the band". Perhaps in a couple years we could try again. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the article is notable. Im the creator, and let me just say, i believe the article, unfortunatley, doesn't fully meet all of the 12 basic criteria. HOWEVER, I personally feel that the Ellio's Pizza Rock Star Challenge is a pretty major music competition. Not only did over 53,000 people vote (well, more because that was only the amount of people who voted for Scarlet Fade), but you have to consider the following: the contest in question was for indie bands. You have to understand that indie bands are a much smaller piece of the music world than signed artists. So, when it comes to it, the 53,000+ people are a small percentage in the category of "music", but a larger percentage of the category of "indie music". To be honest, I knew about the contest back in 2006, when it first started. In fact, my whole town (and all the bands in it, and all the bands in towns around us) knew about it. No offense, but maybe it wasn't notable to you guys. However, to a lot of people, it was. I would also like to add that, while the article doesn't fully meet any of the other criterias for notability, it does partially meet several. For example, one piece of criteria is that the band, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." While the band hasn't been included nationally as far as I know, they have been included on local stations and statewide stations (i think one was 96.5 TIC - http://www.965tic.com). Another piece of criteria that the band partially meets is that they, "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." The band has released 1 single and 1 album, so they obviously havent released 2 albums yet, but if you consider a single an album, then we're good. NOT TO MENTION that the band fully fits the criteria that they, "[Have] become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." The band, which originated in Bristol, CT, is well known in their town, and even in other towns in Connecticut (such as mine). The band is so well known that my friend's old-er relatives (perhaps great aunt or grandmother; i dont know exactly) who lives in Bristol has heard of them. I know they are somewhat well known, and i wish that you would respect that. The band has been an influence for other bands, and i want a source for people to go to when they want to find information about the band (not to advertise, obviously; i was sure to not do that).

--[Email address removed] 00:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't pay attention to music much, but to reply to "the article is notable" — Have the song and the CD been issued on any of these major labels? If not, it fails that criterion, regardless of whether the separate song is considered a separate album. Just like politicians — although national and regional significance can make the music group and the elected official notable, simply local significance (whether being played on local stations or holding local elected office) doesn't make the subject notable. Finally, as to the city: I would guess that this refers to really large cities, probably larger than Bristol; if it meant ANY city, then a four-person band from Ruso, North Dakota would obviously be the most prominent representative of that city's cultural scene, but that wouldn't mean much. Ultimately, to be notable under the WP:MUSIC criteria to which you refer, it must fully pass one or more of the notability criteria; passing them partially isn't enough. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND; a non-notable band on a non-notable label. B.Wind (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mindanao tech

Doesn't seem to be notable, no google results, not much given in article Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability--otherlleft (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should not be deleted because this article just want to convey that university students can share freely their thoughts about what's going on around them, that would affect their roles. Dcknicks22 (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here to show why this student newsletter is notable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 12:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I try not to bite at how badly written the article is (with a talk message in the main wiki even), but I agree with the others here that the subject lacks notability. Starczamora (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, this isn't a student newspaper to the level of the Philippine Collegian or (for fellow WP editors in the US) the Harvard Crimson. Doesn't meet notability...yet. --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pendergast

This is an unsourced (apart from the subject's personal website) biography of a living person and I do not think that any sources will be found. His claimed sporting achievements are not at a professional level and I do not know of any reliable sources which cover the players in such events with the detail required to write a neutral, verifiable, encyclopaedia article about an individual player. If sources do exist then they will likely take time to find, an unsourced BLP should not be on Wikipedia for any length of time and an article cannot be based only on selfpublished sources. Guest9999 (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?Delete maybe? According to the wikipedia article on Gaelic football, "It has strict rules on player amateurism" so that sounds like there will never be "professional" teams anyway. Not sure how to handle that, as it doesn't fit into normal rules, it would seem. You may have to delete simply because the rules of the game almost insure no player is notable, in a way. Perhaps a newspaper will have written about him, but notability can't be automatic. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete not notable. [32] Reads like an autobiography. Sticky Parkin 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While searching UK Google news is unlikely to bring up a lot of detail about a gaelic footballer, the standard is playing at the highest amateur level, which he does not do. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vonn

Dismally fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. The site Doom-metal.com that is mentioned in the opening paragraph is strictly a fanboy endeavour -- copious levels of genuine media coverage are acutely lacking. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We can't find their CDs and we don't know who's in the band? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, band has one self-released album to their name. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, one self-released album (although they did self-release it twice). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if I am doing this right because this was my first page for wikipedia.

The reason I added the band Vonn as my first page - and why I felt they were noteworthy in wikipedia - is that I felt they truly summed up the essence of what extreme doom metal is, with its obscurity, extremity, and the fact that the band refuse to do interviews, be properly identified or conduct interviews. I am a journalist and we tried to get an interview with the band by going through one of the larger bands that the members are in, but they refused. Also the fact that reviews of the album all cite the music as the most extreme music the reviewers have heard, one of the reasons we wanted to interview them. I therefore thought a wikipedia page would be appropriate. Anyway, if it's not deemed worthy of inclusion, so be it. No big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SabenaSB (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StrategyWiki

AfDs for this article:

No assertion of notability for websites - links and sources are to StrategyWiki alone, bar the two links to talk pages (talk pages!) on other wikiprojects that do not mention StrategyWiki at all (and would not be reliable sources anyway). This appears to be the second nomination (first is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StrategyWiki and based on the old deletion discussion points, it either hasn't changed, or wasn't deleted after the discussion closed). This could be a speedy since it's already been discussed in essentially the same format (and this time, salt the earth!). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was deleted properly, according to the log and recreated March 31, 2008, according to the history, so it appears it was created in good faith. Speedy doesn't apply. It has several references, but they all appear to fail wp:rs. Probably a nice site and all, just isn't notable yet. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete — The only reliable source I can find is this Joystiq article here. I'm afraid that's not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the WP:GNG. It's a shame considering I have also contributed over there from time to time. MuZemike (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that reliability of Joystiq's hosted info should be judged based on its authors, not on the site (WP:VG/S). Jappalang (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've seen Kotaku is considered a reliable source/news site as well. There have been published advertisements for the site. Also has a decent alexa ranking. I can't vote as it's a conflict of interest, but I'd say 'weak keep'. -- Prod (Talk) 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that reliability of Kotaku's hosted info should be judged based on its authors, not on the site (WP:VG/S). Jappalang (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources that could give a comprehensive coverage of the subject: subject is not notable per WP:GNG. Jappalang (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 0 Gnews hits. Web hits (looked through the first 10 pages or so) are not promising at all. The best it gets is a blurb on joystiq, which is not generally a RS. Protonk (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't understand the point of this debate. This entry was submitted and it was rejected once. Issues brought up in the first discussion were considered and the entry was resubmitted, and it appeared that the issues were sufficiently addressed. Now it seems that we're debating the issue again under even more stringent guidelines. I understand that no site gets preferential treatment, but SW is certainly a partner wiki in good faith, and interlinking occurs between both sites substantially. Plotor (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plotor (talk • contribs) [reply]

The point is not that interwiki links shouldn't exist. The point is whether or not we should have an article on strategywiki. And we can't if strategywiki isn't covered in the press (basically). Protonk (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to delete but it fails the policies/guidelines: Found a paper which cites it using scholars.google:[33], but it's only really a citation that it exists in the same manner as Wikipedia (as a wiki). --Izno (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm actually a little surprised that reliable third-party sources didn't turn up. But that a several different google searches revealed nothing about such an Internet-driven and recent topic should confirm that this just isn't notable yet. No prejudice towards re-creation once StrategyWiki becomes notable, and there is reliable third-party coverage to support this article. Randomran (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per IAR, snow on the main AfD and common sense. Albums/singles from a non-notable and speedied artists aren't going to be notable either. Just because we can't A7 doesn't mean they need to run five days. TravellingCari 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its Pouring Rain

Uncited, unnotable, crystalballing. There are many other AFDs regarding this "artist", someone spamming it here. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keep Going Back and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/...The Fame cover the same "artist" (Ghetto Boi), which was speedy deleted. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless Fourtune. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet more unreleased, non-notable material from this WP spammer. WWGB (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Core i8

Complete garbage. The speedy delete prod was contested, but not improved in any way. Factually inaccurate, outright lies, jokes, etc. Speedy delete, please! Matt Deres (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3 - blatant vandalism, borderline attack page, has been tagged. Guest9999 (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, there is no such thing, (yet?). Hoax, that qualifies for pure vandalism. RockManQ ^(talk) 02:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Girl Called Kate

The article has an impressive list of artists the band has performed with so I am no going to go with {{db-band}} on this one but in all other aspects this band appears unnotable.

It gets three mentions in news sources (as determined by GoogleNews; [34]) but none of the mentions exceed one sentence and contain essentially no information about the band and the bands only release so far, an EP titled "This Is All She Gave Us", appears to be a minor release ([35]) to say the least. Icewedge (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --Walmwutter (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete questionable notability and poorly written articles. --Da Vynci (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there seem to be some assertion of notability, but without sourcing for verification, this will be An Article Called Deleted. B.Wind (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as blatant advertising. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HIORAC8

Not notable. There is no mention of this product that is not in a press release, a UV Exposures web site, a blog, or a web page trying to sell something. Wronkiew (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI-ORAC-8 is a clinically tested and approved compound and a recent advancement in organic chemistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.141.157 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then prove it with reliable sources otherwise, Delete. X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, only 172 Google results, many directly related to UV Exposures or a mirror of Wikipedia, and mostly just marketing from the company who develops it (UV Exposures, who also isn't notable.) Soliloquial (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I tried to reference all the data related to the compound in the page. I'm not trying to advertise here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MNICOLO (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Arguably, speedy delete as vandalism. The article is obvious nonsense. It is impossible for a single organic compound to contain green tea, pomegranates, cocoa, carrots, coffee, and vitamins A D and E. The claims are straight-out lies and rubbish. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Gurtovoy

A second rate electronic music composer and leader of a band that according to its website has not released an album yet. Fails WP:MUSIC. Blacklake (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being second rate is not a reason for deletion (or half of Wikpedia has to go!). However, lack of notabilty is. Delete Emeraude (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there do not appear to be any reliable sources which could be used to create a verifiable, encyclopaedia article about the subject. Guest9999 (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not nice to call someone "second rate" -- but problems with WP:RS and WP:BIO cannot be ignored. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dora (singer)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. In 1986 she was 14th with Não sejas mau para mim and two years later she was 18th with Voltarei. Schuym1 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to the issue of reliable sourcing. I will check back on this debate periodically to see if anyone can locate documents to demonstrate the notability of the subject. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has represented Portugal twice as noted in the article, and confirmed from the Eurovision particpation history for Portugal. Dora, as a name makes it hard (nearly impossible) to search via google, and I suspect that most sourcing would be inPortuguese which I cannot read. -- Whpq (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Twice represented her country at the Eurovision Song Contest and not notable? Let's use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE here. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems the page has had the same two sentence description since April 2006. A look at Eurovision Song Contest 1986 shows a list of the top 20 and lists Dora as number 20, not 14 (Confirmed by the official website as well) and for 1988 she was again 20, not 18([http://www.eurovision.tv/index/main?page=66&event=304 official). Either way Dora would still be included on that page, there is no need to keep a two line article.

Comment. That's untrue. Those references confirm that she was placed 14th and 18th - 20 is simply the draw number. It's the column on the right that you need to look at, not the one on the left. But anyway she's notable for representing a country in the contest, not for the position she gained. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My bad. I see that. But I still stick to delete as a two line article is weak. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And since when has being a two line article been a reason for turning it into a zero line article? This needs expansion, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I am all for any article being expanded upon however the topic here is not expansion it is "should it be deleted." I said "Seems the page has had the same two sentence description since April 2006" and I make my choice on that. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TinyAlbum

Notability issues: Google returns only 910 documents Photoact (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: Google only returned 910 if you use the "www". If you search for "tinyalbum.com" you will find 8720. Search for "www.google.com" and you'll get 29M, search for "google.com" and you'll get 162M. Mike Hoyles 23:05 MST, 6 October 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

This has nothing to do with including the "www" or not. In the search Google the pages from the site itself are excluded: this is done to measure the number of sites linking to tinyalbum.com.Photoact (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, (still learning) - Thanks. Mikehoyles 10:00 MST, 7 October 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of 18th century Brussels Freemasons

Listcruft / indiscriminate collection of information. Exists here on the French Wikipedia and I question whether it actually needs translation. At best reduce to list of those who have articles here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the names which link to articles can probably be included in List of Freemasons (if they're not already), the inclusion criteria for an entry in a list of people is generally that the person meets the criteria for having their own article, currently even in the very extensive French list that would reduce the list to only a few names. If the main article gets too long and cumbersome, I'm sure it will be split apart until then it seems unnecessary to have separate articles for each century/country (unless the members of a certain area at a certain time are especially (collectively) noteworthy for some particular reason - this article gives no evidence that this is the case for 18th century Brussels). Guest9999 (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nom's cogent comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no mention of anyone being interested in this subject other than the author. WillOakland (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and cleanup WP:DEADLINE. --Walmwutter (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to its most likely place, History of Freemasonry in Belgium. This one is interesting -- it looks like somebody's individual project, recently done, with a few links but untranslated from French, and there's even an illustration in the most complete form (which I've restored for discussion's sake). It might make sense to edit this down to only include linked people. Or, a quicker way, simply redirect, and encourage the editor to continue his project there, if he's still interested. --Lockley (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2, 3, 4, and 10. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From The Ground Up (Dizzy album)

Non-notable, download only album, fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article seems to be closly related to On The Inside Looking Out, also a download only album from the same artist. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Claimed "hit" song did not chart w/Billboard. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Narcos de S.L.P

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Google Watch

The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view 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 Redirect to El Avion De Las Tres. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Este Corazon Llora

Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources of notability or awards. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to El Avion De Las Tres - no evidence of charting or other indication of notability outside of the album itself. B.Wind (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Aylott (make-up artist)

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

Procedural. Been tagged for notability questions since June 2007, and in its current state isn't notable. However, he's done a lot of make-up work, and you'd think as a result there'd be sources out there. No opinion on the matter yet. Wizardman 04:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without prejudice for recreation upon notable publishing. I currently can't find anything independent aside from imdb list to assert WP:BIO. Chaldor (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't understand why it was relisted. I think it's obvious that this article fails notability. --Magioladitis (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rostislaw Wygranienko

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

Notability not established through reliable sources. Wizardman 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has been tagged as unreferenced for over a year, so notability cannot be established. Unless there are some sources that show why the article is notable, it should be deleted.--Terrillja (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pomona New Community

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

Run-of-the-mill local program, fails WP:Notability. Largo Plazo (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Abhishek ^Talk 04:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Horselover Frost (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet standards for inclusion, no secondary sources available. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pomona, California. JASpencer (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is currently no context (e.g., a list of community service organizations) in that article in which it would make sense to include a mention of this organization.—Largo Plazo (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in merging -- just 10 non-wiki ghits, none of which are showing notability, zero gnews hits. There are probably a dozen after-school programs just like it in Pomona.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No wiki-notability established - or even asserted! Springnuts (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Merge discussions, if desired, can continue on the article's talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Mall

Utterly unremarkable office building mall. Is any of it still in operation, other than the Target they were putting in last I heard? —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak neutral~~. I did find this substantial source which documents the replacement of the whole mall with a Target store (there's your answer), but otherwise I'm finding nearly bupkis. If the towers had a page I'd suggest a merge to their page, but I don't know if said towers are notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest of keeps I was hoping there was a policy to offer some guidance, you know, like a WP:MALL. Of course there is, and it was abandoned because they couldn't reach a concensus. I see over 2500 ghits for it, which doesn't mean much by itself. I lean to keep only because there isn't a real policy to guide me on why it should be deleted, and it is pretty hard to apply general notability here. My guess is that since it is 31 years old, something interesting can probably be dug up about it. I did find one article from [36] that tells the whole story pretty well, better than the article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep. I've done a slight WP:HEY job on the article, mainly with the one source that I found. There are a couple less significant hits on Google News, so I say it's salvageable, if not by much. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Falls Church, Virginia. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Towers Apartments

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

21st tallest building in a mid-size city... no NRHP, no local landmark listing, does not seem to have any genuine claim to importance. The only coverage outside of a business paper, which routinely reports on business plans to buy or expand properties, is just coverage about a death that happened to occur on top of part of the building. I really don't think this constitutes non-trivial coverage of the building. Rividian (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has been in existence for a long time without establishment of WP:N. Chaldor (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is conspicuously lacking. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without any claim to notability, no notable architect listed, and no NRHP listing as mentioned above. --Lockley (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to À fleur de toi. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pourquoi les hommes ?

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

Non notable song, never charted, only available digitally. Fails WP:NM. Europe22 (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom nailed it, and even the article says the song did poorly and was digital only. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to À fleur de toi, album containing the recording. B.Wind (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Chand (musician)

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Does not have significant coverage by independent reliable sources, no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clutter (organizing)

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

WP:DICTDEF with semi-promotional web links. VG ☎ 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can tell me how this could ever be more than a dictionary definition. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if this were to be completely modified to move it away from a mere definition, I think it would move to being an essay, which would be deleted as well. Soliloquial (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing substantive to save. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect . The content appears to have been merged previously to Diefenbaker Management Area so that will be the redirect target. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Many

This article is about an event that is not notable, as described in Wikipedia:Notability (news events)#Local events. There is no indication that this event will return in the future. Drm310 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup you're right... the article states in a quotation even...pilot project model for mid sized cities. It would be nice if the festival returned and gained impetus as it had a good aim. It may be a better idea to delete the stub after the non returned future event instead of using a crystal ball to delete the festival ahead of the article, but C'est la vie . Using the local event notability will work for a few more months, but can a deleted wikipedia article be resurrected from the ashes to commemorate the ensuing festivals in other cities, therefore not local, which are planned, and which have Hunt Alternatives Fund $40,000 matching grant for the 2008, as well as many other sponsors, and have been fund raising in several cities after the Saskatoon festival to promote 2009 festivals. It may or may not be premature to delete the articles, the WAM promoters seem to think they will be sustained. It would be nice to have a crystal ball.SriMesh | talk 05:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable festival. This is just like many other festivals worldwide that are not notable enough for their own article. Our local one has been running for several years and only gets a passing mention in the article on the suburb, which is just fine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saskatoon#Events and festivals. Content makes sense there and a redirect to it may be useful to readers. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. It'd be nice to add the content to Diefenbaker Management Area, which is sorely lacking info as well. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very borderline notability at present; I think the single secondary source used would support a merge as proposed above, but there's not enough there to sustain an independent article. If the festival takes off and becomes the subject of multiple, non-trivial coverage, then an article could be created in the future. EyeSerene^talk 20:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content has been added to Diefenbaker Management Area, good idea. SriMesh | talk 05:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and re-direct: For now it can be merged and the page re-directed. But if it is continues each year, it can be broken off into an article of its own. Mr. C.C. (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Hoser

Only references are attacks on his work by a single, rival academic. No clear assertion of notability which would qualify him as notable under the individual fields of author-notability or television presenter-notability. Inherent WP:BLP issues, subject request via OTRS, and marginal notability. Daniel (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete nominator said it all. He doesn't want this, and it is too marginal for us to need it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references are peer reviews to his work, with (not one, but) eleven, Australian and international workers in the field putting their names to the scientific discussion papers. They challenge the validity of Hoser's scientific descriptions and contain nothing that could be construed as a personal attack. This is in stark contrast to the man himself who publishes such material on his web sites. The references do not state that he stinks, for example, but I detect a stench when I am harried by an editor who finally looks at what he has done, says he now has no objections, then toddles off here to vote nay. cygnis insignis 11:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —cygnis insignis 13:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Amateurs sometimes make valuable contributions to taxonomy of groups of interest to them (reptiles, orchids, aquarium fish, etc). This does not seem to be the case for Hoser. The three references cited are not "attack essays" as stated on the article's talk page (and not from a single academic, as stated in the nom, there are several different co-authors on each of the three papers), but articles correcting errors brought into the taxonomic literature by a presumably well-meaning amateur. If "attacks", they attack his work, not the person and therefore don't seem to poase a BLP issue to me. In any case, it doesn't seem likely that his taxonomic work will have much more impact than the citations he got in these three papers, which would not be enough to satisfy any of the criteria of WP:PROF. His other activities (website and such) don't seem to be notable enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Just an aside, the fact that the subject of the article doesn't want an article is basically irrelevant to this discussion. A lack of notability is the only valid reason for deletion, IMHO. --Crusio (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly not notable as an academic, under WP:ACADEMIC. Very little evidence of any citability (not to mention high citability, which is what is generally required for satisfying criterion 1 of WP:ACADEMIC) of his scholarly work by other scientists. Very low citation results in GoogleScholar[37] and similarly low in WebOfScience. Also, very little in googlebooks[38]. Nsk92 (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Weak Delete. Although the subject is not notable academically, there may be a passable WP:BIO case (in relation to his political activism) based on the GoogleNews results[39]. However, such a case does not seem to be strong, the subject requests deletion and there are apparent BLP concerns here. In view of this I still think that deletion is warranted. Nsk92 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this WP:COATRACK. Guy 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy, don't you think it is ironic that, in your eagerness to defend "living people", you never seem to hesitate in besmirching the motives and integrity of your fellow Wikipedians? Whoever wrote this article is a living person too, you know, and you have not a scrap of evidence to back up your COATRACK claim against them. Congratulations, you've just made an unverifiable personal attack on a living person. Hesperian 13:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, for goodness sake get a sense of proportion. A negative assessment of an anonymous person on a non-indexed debate page is NOT in the least equivalent to Wikipedia publishing highly prominent accessible information on living people who have no choice in its inclusion. And if any wikipedian doesn't like the treatment they can walk away, article subjects cannot.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't talking to you, Scott. Hesperian 13:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I was talking to you. If you want to have a private conversation with Guy, try e-mail. This is a multi-party discussion page.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The closing admin will likely ignore such ad hominem attacks Hesperian. Can you keep the discussion on-topic please? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hesperian, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about: [40]. If Doomguy1001 was his real name then you might have a point, but it isn't. Guy 17:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand your response correctly, you're not claiming that the creator of, or main contributors to, this article were biased, but rather than one or more bad faith editors have subsequently injected bias into the article. Apparently you think that any article that has received an injection of bias is thereby a coatrack that should be deleted. Sarah Palin? George W. Bush? Abortion? Hesperian 05:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that the main reason anyone wants an article on this man appears to be in order to discuss the dispute in which he is engaged. This is a view I formed while researching the possibility of a better sourced and more neutral article: most sources on the internet appear to be polemical in nature. Thise which are not appear to track back to him. We received an OTRS complaint regarding the dispute between him and another individual; the only coverage of said dispute was primary sources connected with the two. I don't see this as a genuine article documenting a notable individual, but an article designed to either highlight or downplay, depending on partisan allegiance, his controversial side. Since the controversy appears to be restricted to a rather small group of individuals, I don't think it's an appropriate subject for an article. Guy 13:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've had more scientific impact than this guy, and I've only just finished my MS and published 2 papers. Mokele (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia does not need pages on every person who some handful of people (about 3 per day in this case) might want to find information about. Wikipedia's 'notability' guidelines exist both to protect us from being flooded by pages about obscure individuals AND to protect individuals who are not already widely scrutinized from having their privacy violated by us. The latter seems to apply in this case. The listed sources all have extremely limited circulation. This person isn't regularly discussed in major newspapers. There is neither an existing 'public collection' of information about this person nor an existing demand for such information. It should not be Wikipedia's role to provide information which is not already widely available and sought after. --CBD 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Take off, eh? Per WP:BIO and per reasonable request from non-notable subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author of multiple published works. Author of numerous valid (albeit not accepted) taxonomic names. His contributions to herpetology nomenclature have had such an impact that they have been the subject of academic refutations published in reputable journals. So what if his contributions have been assessed as unhelpful rather than helpful: the same could be said of Otto Kuntze or Richard Salisbury. The impact remains. This man well and truly meets our notability policy. Hesperian 13:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you your logic, I get my own page? After all, I discovered a new mode of snake locomotion (meaning I did real, actual research, as opposed to just inventing new names for things), and my discovery has been upheld in the literature. Or how about my friend Dan, who discovered the secondary re-evolution of galloping gaits in vampire bats? Or Manny, who discovered pennate muscle gearing? Or Tim, who discovered differential within-muscle activations? All of us have had our discoveries published in top-tier journals. My point is that all but the worst/laziest graduate student needs to have substantial novel contributions to science simply in order to graduate. We clearly cannot list all of them. Articles should be reserved for those who have made truly huge contributions, either in the form of a single incredible discovery or a lifetime of high-quality work. Shitting out some taxonomy papers - which were rejected - is not notable. Mokele (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you provide the references for that, I will be happy to write an article on you. Your discovery is notable! He is noted at WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles recommended taxonomic source (ITIS) as providing valid names. His name appears in multiple and reliable sources discussing Elapidae and other families of snakes. If Hoser is not notable, how did you come to hear of him or the article? Why did you contribute to it, prompting this talk page item from another user in this AfD 'discussion'? cygnis insignis 16:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the point is that I'm NOT notable (at least not yet), and that many, many graduate students, post-docs, and professors have done a LOT of notable work, much more than Hoser. If we set the bar for inclusion in WP at this level, WP might as well simply import the entire faculty list of every university, plus most of the grad students, past and present. My familiarity with him comes from his role in the venomoid trade - to me, he's notable as an animal-abuser who mutilates snakes in unsanitary conditions with horrific mortality rates and no proper surgical procedure or post-operative care. Just about every reputable herpetologist or hobbyist won't go near him with a 20 foot pole as a result. Mokele (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree that your body of work doesn't make you notable. But once a reputable journal publishes an assessment of the impact of your work, you're notable. That is true regardless of whether the assessment is "Mokele's ground-breaking contributions have laid a frameword for the field for the next fifty years." or "Mokele's contributions are a load of garbage that have set the field back fifty years." Hesperian 04:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps I should rephrase - performing notable, publishable research is basically the job description of any scientist, so the bar for notability needs to be set higher, as in the guidelines for academics. I don't think there's any debate that Hoser's work does not make the grade - it's a handful of taxonomic changes in obscure papers (many of which have been rejected). I've read some of his papers, and I'm definitely not impressed - I'd reject them if I was a peer-reviewer, mostly due to the highly dubious choices of distinguishing characters (such as pattern, scalation, and vertebral number, all of which are highly polymorphic within and between populations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokele (talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you are comparing Hoser to O. Kuntze, a man who produced an enormous body of work. And although much of that has been overturned, a lot of it still stands. Many of the taxa described by Kuntze are still in use today, more than 100 years later. --Crusio (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken; it was not my intention to put Hoser on the same pedestal as Kuntze. Hesperian 04:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Raymond Hoser easily passes the general test of worthy of notice, with many reliable independent secondary sources (newspaper articles, radio and current affairs news transcripts, academic refutations in journals) available to attest to his worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article probably needs more detail on Hoser's work, his anti-corruption campaigning and various legal cases he has been embroiled in, some of which were newsworthy and very unusual such as the Victorian Supreme Court fining him $5000 for scandalising the court in 2001, a rarely prosecuted offence.[41]. As with most VfD articles, they often need improvement, and this one is no exception, including adding reliable secondary sources. Although the subject of the article may fail the academic notability test, I find it difficult to believe how any editor can seriously consider this article for deletion based on a general test of Notability. The person is very noteworthy, although not necessarily based on his scientific achievements. --Takver (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not VfD. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - the usual bar of notability is "multiple non-trivial reliable secondary sources about the subject." None of the people recommending that we keep the article have so far shown any kind of evidence that this kind of source exists for this subject. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Nutral - this guy seems to attract very minor press. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not true - Google News found 427 references to Raymond Hoser, many of which were non-trivial articles. I have just done a rewrite of the article, which changes the focus to Hoser as an anti-corruption whistleblower and campaigner. He has been significantly reported upon and discussed with regard to anti-corruption. I added 9 non-trivial reliable and independent secondary references to the article which substantiate the claim to general notability of the article.--Takver (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I've added in a section with references about his persistence practice of animal cruelty. Mokele (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - non-notable individual, and subject requested. We are reasonable people here; let's not fight about this. -- how do you turn this on 18:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Stricken per research done. -- how do you turn this on 21:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete just in the context of a scientist, his two descriptive biology books are not widely held outside of Australia. The 4 scientific papers mentioned are not in international journals. I have not look at other factors. 03:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC) re-evaluated--see below DGG (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is very well known in herpetological circles, if not necessarily for his scientific achievements. Moreover, he has been embroiled in numerous acrimonious exchanges, and a Wikipedia page provides the opportunity for balanced coverage.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissaca (talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've actually got a few of his corruption books here on my shelf. Notable by my standards. -- Longhair\^talk 11:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, balanced article and there is no need to be too concerned by his wish for it to be deleted as he is clearly a believer in freedom of speech on occasions.--Grahame (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin and "keep" voting editors Given the way AfD usually works, it boils down to a vote, even if it shouldn't. Given the number of "keep" votes given above (although none of them really give any solid reasons establishing notability), I therefore expect the closing admin to go for a "no consensus" solution, this being the easiest and safest. In that case, the article needs a thorough rewrite. Nobody really argues that the herpetological work of this person is notable. Whatever notability he has, it derives from his anti-corruption activities. The article needs to be rewritten to reflect this. For instance, it now starts with "is an Australian herpetologist". As it stands, the anti-corruption stuff is secondary, the herpetology primary. The latter should be more of a footnote. --Crusio (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BIO, though not WP:PROF. I've added "findsouces" above to facilitate viewing GNews results. WP:COATRACK is easily trumped by notability: the point is then to get NPOV in the article. Crusio is correct in saying the article needs re-writing. Takver's edits help; I can see why this one was nominated given the state it was in yesterday, but I think it doesn't qualify for deletion now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep -- see below for rationale. although not notable as an academic--works are of local interest only. The sources fo rthe rest is good enough, but the article remains sketchy.DGG (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep His work dealing with Australian corruption makes him notable enough as is. He could likely get an article simply for his herpetological work. It is not generally a good idea to delete an article on someone notable for two distinct issues would be deleted. Note also that claims of COATRACK are unpersuasive(and moreover irrelevant since the solution to such an issue would be to rewrite not to delete). Finally, the subject's work especially his political work makes him a willing public figure. It is unreasonable in the extreme to delete articles about willing public figures even if they want them deleted. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notably bad amateur scientist who's work was singled out for detailed rebuttal in a review article by several prominent herpetologists, who also made unusually strong criticisms of his ethics (see article). More criticism of Hoser's work was published in PMID 16999982, which I will also add to this article. Most scientists, fortunately, do not warrant that much attention. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note on "citations" in taxonomy and nomenclature From the above comments by several editors, I feel there is perhaps a need to explain a bit about work in scientific nomenclature. The traditions of taxonomy force people to cite. One cannot deal with a group without citing all synonyms and their "authorities" (I put that between parentheses, because this does not mean "authority" in the common sense, but in the taxonomic sense). If one sees things that way, those citations rebutting Hoser's work are less significant, not more. To give another example, in most fields of science, if someone manages to publish bad research (which unfortunately happens more often than one would like), nobody will cite it and that's the end of it. In taxonomy, given the nomenclature rules, if someone publishes a bunch of rubbish names, they still must be dealt with and they will be listed ad eternam in any article covering the taxonomy and nomenclature of that particular group. If this would confer notability, then all someone has to do to become notable is to publish a bunch of scientific names in a valid way (and that's pretty easy, since they don't need to be published in a peer-reviewed journal - a self-published little rag is sufficient) and wait until someone writes an article to put the record straight.... --Crusio (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, this guy seems to be a serial offender in that regard, which I agree doesn't make him a notable scientist, but the aggravation and disruption he has caused appears to have been considerable, and generated a lot of comment in reliable sources. Consequently, I think his taxonomic "work" makes him notable, because it is so very bad. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't many people becoming notable for their amateur taxonomy work whether well done or not. If at some point people start publishing bad taxonomy work in order to get Wikipedia articles we can worry about it then. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and who is going to want to become notable for being wrong? That would be the academic equivalent of becoming the star wars kid. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't care how many rules it violates, we *MUST* use that description in the section on Hoser's taxonomic work. It's just too funny not to use. Mokele (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am not seriously proposing that someone would do all this on purpose, just to get into WP. I was just trying to illustrate a point. I work in neuroscience. If I would publish some particularly bad science, then most other neuroscientists would ignore it, unless it attracted attention for some reason, say because I managed to make a lot of noise and get it into prominent journals. In that case, someone might write an article entitled "Why Crusio is wrong" and that might rightfully be taken as a sign of notability. I did bad science, but it was notable. Like most people here, as a neuroscientist I would take the articles showing Hoser's errors as a sign of notability. Bad science, but notable. However, when I was a student I worked in taxonomy (I even described a new species at some point :-), so I know a bit how things go there. Scientific nomenclature is guided by a set of stringent rules (actually sets of rules: there are different rules for plants, animals, microorganisms). These rules stipulate that if a name is validly published, it has to be taken into account, whether correct or not. Suppose I would describe a new contemporary species in the genus Homo, Homo ludens. All taxonomists studying Homo would fall over me: there is only one contemporary species of Homo, Homo sapiens. H. ludens would therefore be reduced to a synonym. The thing is, however, that every subsequent serious taxonomic treatment of Homo sapiens would have to cite H. ludens (and my bad article), listing it as a synonym of H. sapiens. Unlike other fields, citations in taxonomy are not necessarily a sign that someone has used a certain piece of work, it's just an acknowledgement that some name was validly published, nothing else. Suppose now that I would have published a whole bunch of new names in Homo. Someone would then have to publish an article to state officially that these names are wrong, otherwise they would become the valid nomenclature: the last publication counts. I would not call that "a lot of comment". It's just one article, stating "Crusio did a bad job", we reduce all names that he published to synonyms so that we can all be rid of it. Note that I would not need to publish my bad article in some reputable journal. It could be a "journal" that I produce in my back yard shed. In contrast, such an article would be completely ignored in any other field of science. To cut a long story short, I argue that taxonomy is kind of a special case here and the articles correcting the wrong nomenclature introduced by Hoser were not because he had produced some notable bad science, but because the nomenclature rules make it impossible to ignore such bad science and oblige other taxonomists to correct these errors. Hope I'm a bit clearer now than before. For more information, see International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. --Crusio (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It's a bit ironical that here people are arguing for notability because someone has published science bad enough to warrant corrections by others, whereas here people are using the same situation to argue against notability.... ;-) --Crusio (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that was all he'd done, I'd probably agree that notability was borderline. However, the books, legal cases, press coverage and taxonomic SNAFU all add up to make him notable. Added to that, his self-promotional website Smuggled.com for me argues that he is a willing public figure. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep; he seems to be a figure of minor controversy in several fields, that adds up to notability over all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person has had 8 books published between 1989 and 2000, this is enough for notability alone. Then add to it two of those books resulted in convictions for contempt of court in Victoria, another one was the subject of proceedings to surpress its publication. Just today another court case(administrative tribunal) action completed[42]. Then theres the herpetology information. Yes the article is controvercial but it because this guy attracts it, BLP doesnt exclude controversies it just require them to presented in a balance way(WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE) with reliable sources. Gnan garra 05:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was asked by Tim to take another look, at the article--which he has much improved. I am not sure the space devoted to the taxonomic work of an amateur naturalist is really worth the trouble, but I suppose it does as to his credibility for his related work in conservation and related advocacy. That it was discussed in Nature as an example of amateur work is relevant to notability, though. He would in my opinion might well be notable even if he had never done it. I however changed by Weak keep above to a keep, primarily because of the Nature paper. DGG (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nashville NOiR}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition for economic survival}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waccamaw High School}}