Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 18

< September 17	September 19 >

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. Excepting Willis Bates and Harry Huston, as they satisfy WP:ATHLETE.

This AfD had quite a few arguments to it. It appears that the NAIA teams (small colleges) are equated with NCAA division III. As such, their athletes would fail notability for athletes, as they have not competed at the highest level (NCAA division I) of amateur sports.

But, that's also assuming that a coach could be grouped an athlete, so that would be cause for falling back on general biographical notability; however, the subjects are not recipients of notable awards nor made widely-recognized contributions in their specific field— at least, the articles do not assert that. J. J. Thiel's article, for example, states that he is the "9th most successful coach in Southwestern's history." That makes this individual the 9th successful coach at the 3rd successful grouping of college teams. Finally, falling back to the more general notability guidelines, there is no demonstrated widespread media coverage from independent, reliable sources.

Some arguments allude to Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Notability. This is neither a policy nor guideline, nor is it supported by consensus from the entire community. In fact, it could be seen as contradictory to the official notability guidelines.

Finally, there are arguments that a bundled afd is inappropriate; however, there is neither a guideline nor policy discouraging it. In practice, it is actually encouraged that afds are grouped into one page if the nominator believes, in good faith, that the articles will meet the same rationale and that none of them would be likely to survive on their own. There appears to be no malice in this nomination, as they all appear to be Southwestern College Moundbuilders Head Football Coaches, and the rationale was that simply being a coach at the non-highest-level of an amateur team does not, in and of itself, satisfy notability guidelines— a notion that it appears is supported by consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, for example. --slakr^\ talk / 08:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Thiel

Obscure football coach for a low-level NAIA college, fails WP:BIO, WP:V. No biographical information other than his won-loss record. See other recent AfDs on similarly obscure coaches for similarly obscure colleges: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West.

I am also nominating the following related pages, all for coaches at this school, and all which lack any biographical information save for their years coached and won-loss records:

As a side note, I am not nominating seven of the coaches from this school, four because there is evidence of their independent notability, three because while I feel they are not notable, an assertion of notability is made sufficient that their inclusion in a bundled AfD is inappropriate. RGTraynor 15:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Please Move Discussion All of a sudden, there are a large number of college football head coach articles being considered for deletion. There has always been a trickle--one or two at a time, but my current count shows 28 [Wikipedia:WikiProject College football#Articles & Pages being considered for deletion|articles for deletion]], and I'm sure I'm missing many. One editor has achieved a deletion of Walter J. West and is now claiming "precedent" to delete coaches. I suggest (and have been suggesting for some time now) moving these argument to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Notability so that we can have a uniform and open discussion about what truly makes a notable college football coach. This will prevent arguing article-at-a-time and help to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It will prevent a "scramble" on both sides of the argument and make for a single place to come to a true consensus instead of a hit-or-miss end result.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not at all against people having general discussions, and when and if WP:ATHLETE is amended to explicitly grant prima facie notability to coaches of even the lowest possible levels of college ball, of course we ought to rule on black letter policy. RGTraynor 02:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and precedent at Walter J. West. Dpmuk (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Walter J. West is not precedent, but one AfD that "slipped through" the process. There many, many, many, many other articles very very similar that have passed the AfD process. Oh, and since I now have to go put this on a whole bunch of other AfDs, this once again supports my reasoning to please move the discussion to a single location.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Mm, if you've seen other Div III or NAIA coaches without any biographical info that have survived AfD, feel free to cite them, but I don't believe there are any. That being said, fourteen editors advocated deletion on the West article, which is not "slipping through" anything. Among them, the sentiment was very broadly held that (to choose one of the less caustic quotes) "[A] Wikiproject does not make policy that can override site-wide policy." That's considerably more consensus than actually levied "Support" or "Oppose" opinions on CFB:COACH. RGTraynor 14:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: I feel justified calling it a precedent for three reasons:
    - These articles are unlike many other articles that you gave in the West case as most of those other articles had significantly more detail and often other claims to notability. Hence there AfDs aren't precedent for this case.
    - Consensus can change (see WP:CCC). As Walter J. West is a very recent discussion I feel happy saying that's a precedent where as I'd be less happy saying some of the older discussions were a relevant precedent.
    - Walter J. West got comments from a lot of editors - certainly more than for any of the other AfDs mentioned - so again IMO this makes it the most valid precedent.

AfDs are an area for discussion. If I want to call it a precedent I'm quite entitled to and you're quite entitled to disagree (which you obviously do). Given that it's meant to be a discussion and people will often disagree I do not find your language or the use of bold to be helpful - please try to respect other user's opinions even when you disagree with them. (Only going to post this on one AfD at the moment). Dpmuk (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Talk Precedence Please forgive the table in this discussion... it bears scrutiny.

[ Table moved to Discussion page]

If "Precedence" is the true guidance on this, the result must indeed be keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Actually that would be a WP:WAX arguement and is not a very good one. Nevermind the fact that a number of those were non-admin closures and should never have been closed by a non-admin, and one was withdrawn. So there really isn't any "Precedence" going your way either. -Djsasso (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question why is it "precedence" when there is one AfD discussion that says "delete" and "WAX" when twenty-four say keep? And remember, I didn't bring up precedence... the deletion argument did.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Table and rebuttal moved to the Talk page for discussion. RGTraynor 19:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You already raised this issue in the Holm AfD, and if you require a reiteration, so be it. (1) Dahlene passes WP:ATHLETE as a prominent kicker for a major college program and WP:PROF as a college president, both long-held to be prima-facie passes; (2) Moulton's nomination was withdrawn after you claimed that he was an Olympic athlete, another prima facie pass on WP:ATHLETE, although your evidence for the same never was revealed or made it into the article; which was in fact in error, because the Olympic athlete was Fay R. Moulton, who has his own Wikipedia article; (3) Taylor was a state official prominent in the civil rights controversies of the 1950s; (4) Wright was elected to a Hall of Fame ... so all those are discredited.

1) I added a merge tag to Moulton several months ago because I thought they might be the same person. It turns out that they were not as SYSS Mouse confirmed on May 8 (check the history of the page). 2) Fay G. Moulton was a head coach at Kansas State University which is now a Division I FBS school and not related to this discussion at all. You can read about it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fay G. Moulton. Yes, the nominator withdrew and it appears it may have been for that reason (or may not, read closely), but there was no intent on my part to mislead anyone. 3) A "guideline" is not the same thing as a "policy". "Guidelines" are used for notability essays. 4) CFB:COACH specifically states it is an essay and any editor can check the page to verify. 5) How does continually calling me a liar when there are historical archives of the pages that anyone can look at comply with "black letter of policy throughout" ?? Wikipedia is about truth, not falsehoods and you have obviously been digging like crazy into my editing and contribution history.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gottsch, Stevens and the SINGLE Prairie View mass AfD, I'll grant you, a decision based upon your misleading inference that CFB:COACH was an official notability guideline and a misreading of the then-current wording of "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)" from WP:ATHLETE. You failed completely to cite, in those AfDs, that the coaches neither competed at the highest level in amateur sports (that being Division I NCAA football), nor that they met the general criteria of secondary sources. DJ's also dead right in that all but one of those AfDs was closed by a non-admin, which they are not allowed to do for any result other than an unambiguous, non-controversial Keep, and was therefore a heavy violation of process, so much so that the editor responsible for most of them had a 75% Oppose vote at his subsequent RfA on the strength of his poor closures. Are you sure you want to claim those AfDs as supporting your case? RGTraynor 19:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question can you please cite the source or policy covering non-admin closures of AfDs? One other time an admin stated that it was policy that only admins could close AfDs but that was false. If you have new-different-more clear information, can you please present it before we go further?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem: WP:DPR#NAC, which holds: "Editors in good standing who have not been made administrators may close deletion discussions, with the following provisions ... Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results ... Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator ..." RGTraynor 20:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All fails WP:BIO, WP:V. -Djsasso (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question RGT, have you checked that none of these had a professional career? That was a problem with some of the other nominations in these groups of articles.. And I'm also thinking of some similar cases where a few of the apparently non-notable athletes later became state legislators, or notable surgeons, or whatever.-- Agreed its the article authors fault for not checking & inserting the information, but so should we before we delete. But I thing your careful approach here is very reasonable, it would just help to know what you have checked. DGG (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: While deletion policy holds that it is the responsibility of editors who want to save an article to provide sources and prove notability, not the responsibility of noms to prove otherwise, pro-football-reference.com has no record that any of the subjects listed above played pro football. RGTraynor 12:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response that would be unlikely for many of them... Thiel, for example, coached for the 1903-1904 seasons. The NFL didn't start until 1920. This was most definitely the highest level of the expression of the sport at the time for many of these coaches. Think history.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So find offline sources that prove they are notable. You have 7 days to do so, if you just sit here and argue then of course they will be deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timely? For these and 57 other articles. See AfD talk page, that's hardly enough time to address and improve articles on them all. Sorry I don't devote my life 24/7 to Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or the months and months since the articles were created. -Djsasso (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a cheap shot, DJ, and adds nothing to the discussion. Please retract it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more counterproductive than claims that, for articles now nearly a year old, the project that engendered them hasn't been given enough time to improve them. RGTraynor 16:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they weren't given enough time to make some improvements, but demanding that 57 articles suddenly improve all at the same time virtually guarantees that some will not be fixed, even if they can meet WP standards. I'm simply saying that that this is an unreasonable demand in general. Moreover, the "months and months" comment doesn't help anything and only serves to inflame the discussion into areas that are not directly related to the deletion discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I'd like to add to it that there have been many, many articles that started out as stubs that have been improved! You can start by looking at the other coaches at this school in question and checking their history. Start with Harold Elliott and go from there. By placing these stub articles out, many other editors have been easily able to collaborate and grow articles. Deleting these articles will lose that benefit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, Wikipedia is not an indiscrminate collection of information. See also WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Harry Huston. He satisfies all policies and has played professional baseball at the highest level. No opinion on any of the others. Wizardman 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harry Huston. He reached a major league, making him notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Alex (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This information on Harry Huston was just added today, and while of course WP:ATHLETE gives Harry Huston, the baseball player, a free pass, I'd be interested in Paul McDonald's (who added the info) evidence that we're talking about the same fellow. While I understand the temptation to believe that contemporaneous Harry Hustons in Kansas must be the same fellow, the chronology holds that while he was supposedly attending the University of Kansas in Lawrence, he also did a stint as a head coach for Southwestern College in Winfield, KS, as a sophomore, with the campuses a hundred miles apart, which seems a bit of a stretch. Is there any actual proof that these are the same fellow, or is this speculation? RGTraynor 03:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response it wasn't all that uncommon for someone to participate at a school for baseball in the spring and not attend that school in the fall. From everyone that I can reach at the time, it appears to be the same person. Hard, linkable, online proof? Nope. But it is more than reasonable. If it does turn out to be a different person (like the crazy coincidence of the two Fay Moultons at Kansas State) then of course we fix it right away. But it's a good faith contribution.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, do you have any paper evidence that shows these two are the same person? For that matter, is there any evidence that the Huston who played on the Phillies is the same as the one who played for the Lowell Tigers? "Harry Huston" isn't that unusual a name. Zagalejo^^^ 03:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No paper evidence, no. As this is an AfD, I'm throwing it out to the community for collaboration and support. I did attempt to mark it with a fact tag, but it looks like that didn't work. I suppose the Lowell Tigers player could be different now that you mention it, but I have a good deal of confidence that the KU/Philadelphia player is the SC head coach. Same region, same time period, low population base, common for the time period...--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Fay Moultons is indicative of the problem. We can't just assume that people of similar names just must be the same person, because you've already been proven to be dead wrong in such an assumption. (Heck, I can find three "Harry" or "Harold" Hustons in Kansas today.) "From everyone that I can reach at the time, it appears to be the same person." What makes you say that? What precisely is your evidence? Online's not necessary; if you have a newspaper cite, that's what the Boston Public Library is for. RGTraynor 04:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I just called the Southwestern College library to see whether they have any biographical info on Huston-the-coach. The library staffer on duty said that she couldn't find any, and that she didn't really know of anyone else there who could help me. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we're able to come up with any evidence that the two Hustons are the same person, I think his article should be kept, as with all MLB players. If they aren't, or we aren't able to verify that they are, then I think we should still keep the article, but remove all reference to the football coaching until such time as it can be verified. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. No matter how it shakes out, an article on the baseball player is warranted. RGTraynor 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed I'm good with that, actually.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Please consider Willis Bates separately. He also coached at what was once called "Fairmount College" that became Wichita State University. There's some more detail for him from the others.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find this nomination, well ... obscene, there are 19 articles here and another 9 that I'm aware of. Surely other means to address some problem could have been attempted instead of taxing everyone's time and energy. -- Banjeboi 23:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be more specific, it was suggested to run a RfC regarding the essay of the related wikiproject to directly address concerns.
- A merge of all these coaches from the same school into a list tied to the history of the football team might be an elegant solution. If any of the coaches gets enough coverage to warrant their own article then re-create it. The football team is notable but is part of the schools sports article, take the content from there and add the coaching info and viola! -- Banjeboi 00:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

13th Child

The result was Procedural Keep. Articles have been nominated individually as no real connection between them exists. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 05:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also:

The 13th Alley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
152 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
7eventy 5ive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The 8th Plague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Secret Handshake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Attic (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Attack of the Killer Hog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aquanoids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alien Invasion Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brandon Michael Vayda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Ancient (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a group AFD for several prod contested horror movies. The origional tagged tagged all these articles for notability issues, but the prods were subsequently contested by a third user. In order to form consensus, and prevent a whole lot of AFD's, i grouped these articles (Which are quite the same) to form one big AFD. Note that i have little opinion on this matter, just following procedure. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I admit i did not check each and every movie included, but after checking two or three in detail it seems that they fail WP:MOVIE and WP:RS. While searching reliable sources the websites found are most times stores that sell the movies. The few reviews i actually found were based on blogs/personal websites thus failing WP:MOVIE. Also, specifically examining A Secret Handshake, none of the people involved in the movie seem to have their own wikipedia page. At the same time a budget of just a hunderthousand dollars seems to indicate that these are the kind of movies that don't go far in the mainline. (But then again, that was not true for The Blair Witch Project) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - There's no underlying connection between any of these articles other than the fact that they were all PRODed at the same time. The notability issues are different for each and they should each be considered separately. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural keep. Unrelated motion picture articles must not be nominated at the same time, otherwise it creates one hell of a mess. No prejudice against renominating separately. 23skidoo (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep as per Chunky Rice, 23skidoo. Edward321 (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Xy7 (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.G.A.S.

spam article containing fake inline citations previously tagged for speedy but, speedy tag removed without explaination by anon user. Instead of speedy tagging again or risking PROD tag removal I figured best to bring it straight here for consensus. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of reliable sources. Would support G11 due to the extremely spammy language. However, I think calling the citations "fake" is going a little far. Perhaps we can assume good faith and say that the creator, new to Wikipedia, doesn't understand how footnotes are typically used. gnfnrf (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is very confusing, doesn't seem to be all that notable, and the footnotes are bogus. Someone should inform the creator of the article how footnotes are usually used. Tempodivalse (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tumor (Band)

Seemingly non-notable musical group per WP:BAND. Creator removed speedy without comment or alteration. tomasz. 14:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This band appears to be a project of the singer Chris Pohl, who has an article on the German Wikipedia [1]. Pohl appears to be notable as a musician [2] [3] [4] [5]. I can't find any WP:RS for the group Tumor, so maybe this article could be incorporated into a new Chris Pohl article? Bláthnaid ^talk 19:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid ^talk 19:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid ^talk 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Band exists and plays major venues, discography is correct, and main artist (Pohl) is notable in Germany. I'm saying weak keep because finding 3rd party sources specifically about Tumor proves to be quite difficult. Usually the band is only mentioned as an aside in articles about Pohl [6]. Everything else seems to come from their own label's website. (A label which appears to be run by... Pohl.) ~~SIS~~ 21:50, 18 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, — Xy7 (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Even by admission of those above, the Tumor references are trivial. Seems to be enough for a Chris Pohl article though. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then create a redirect for an article about Chris Pohl. Corvus cornix_talk 19:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Delete - Peripitus (Talk) 12:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce Williams

Article created by same user as AfD-nominated Dylan Jones (musician). No evidence for this drummer performing with Pennywise, Jerkwater, The Toadies or ‎The Aquabats. Fails WP:V. Tassedethe (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 19 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, — Xy7 (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 06:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references and none appear to be available. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleted before. — Xy7 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonata Book 9

This article contains very little text - unworthy of its own article. No references, citations or even external links. It focuses on a book that has not yet been written: see - Template:Demonata called "Demonata - Dark Calling". I see no need to keep this article until substantial information on the book emerges. . .Until then, if the user wishes, the information could be merged with the main article - Superflewis (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my nom --Superflewis (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant CRYSTAL BALLery. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 14:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to [[Slam Bang]]. Not notable on his own, redirect to Slam Bang (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Freeman

Not notable, single source, tagged for not meeting notable people criteria and has been since October 2007 Anakinjmt (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did some cleanup when I found this in the backlog. Removed the personal resume and stubbed it to what appeared notable. The linked source was the only one I could find and I notified the project for help since I know little about comics and comic authors, including notability guidelines so I'll trust my gut and the project here. It doesn't appear that the author is notable. I'm not sure whether Slam Bang, his anthology is notable either. TravellingCari 14:19, 18 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) 00:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched the web a bit and couldn't come up with anything other than the Slam-Bang ref. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Isn't the Slam Bang work, enough to meet WP:N (at least)? This seems at least verifiable. - jc37 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a short stub though, and we could just say who the author is in the Slam Bang article. Not every person named on Wikipedia has their own article. Besides, with only one ref that could be found, he doesn't seem too notable to me. Anakinjmt (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But then a redirect is the best solution. Hiding T 14:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If* SlamBang itself is notable. As I said when I referred this article to the comics project, I'm uncertain on how to determine notability there. TravellingCari 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Slam Bang is notable, than a redirect from Allen Freeman to that article is fine with me. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:43, 24 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, Cirt (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the no consensus button broken? Hiding T 11:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes, one wonders.... —Quasirandom (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Jones (musician)

Suspected hoax. No relevant ghits for this person in connection with Violent Femmes or Pierce Williams. No evidence of a band called "Wayco Kids". Fails WP:V. Tassedethe (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure it's a hoax (this may or may not be the same guy), but notability and verifiability don't appear to be there either. (If it's so hard to figure out who's who...that does not generally imply notability.) Frank | talk 14:14, 18 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) 00:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, possible hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Vishwas

Does not meet WP:BIO and no verifiable sources. Dloh cierekim 13:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not shown. I could change my mind if more reliable sources are added, however. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:57, 19 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) 00:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no references listed, significance of person listed not verifiable without references. --TylerPuetz (^talk/_contribs) 01:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He did get an award, but I don't know how important this award is. I have a feeling more sources may be available in Hindi, the language he writes in. Hopefully a Hindi-speaking editor will help us out here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the article creator could provide us with reliable sources, it would be very helpful. Dloh cierekim 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. These awards are unlikely to be covered by the mainstream English media in India. So additional reliable sources might be difficult. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable per Nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Xy7 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Guy Calvert

Suspected hoax. No relevant ghits for this person except this obituary. No trace of a French existentialist philosopher either, the Denis Boucher linked is a baseball player. Tassedethe (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original article was an unsourced not notable obituary, which later was added to with unsourced claims that would have made it notable. The additions/changes appear more to be vandalism.--Pmedema (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced at best, likely hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete smells like fish Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BLP, also no evidence of notability. TravellingCari 02:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dellums

Notability is not asserted or established in this article, and it certainly isn't inherited. Whether this is good or bad, being a convicted murderer does not convey notability either. Finally, whether or not one is a convicted murderer, the article must still adhere to WP:BLP, and without sufficient sources, it is questionable that this article does so. I do understand most of the claims are made in the one citation given in the article, but I'm not sure it's enough, and there's still the problem of the subject not being notable in the first place. Frank | talk 12:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent claim to notability outside one event, only notable for how it affected others. gnfnrf (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a Coatrack. The subject of the article is being used to attack his father. Horologium (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect title. A reasonable case for merging this content has been made here, and in the previous AFD. I need to also add that I am not merging (for one thing, it isn't decided really exactly where this should be merged. Please use Talk:Snotling to discuss possible locations. Keeper ǀ 76 15:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snotling

Article was nominated before for failing WP:NOTE, with a result of "no consensus". Since that time no effort has been made to assert notability - all the sources provided merely mention the subject in passing. There is no real world context to the article, and it still consists almost entirely of WP:PLOT -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no independent third-party sources which feature the Snotling as a primary subject. Fictional race with only minor import even within the game universe; the notes on metabolism and origin et cetera can be fully covered in Ork (Warhammer 40,000) or greenskin or another extant article which already contains most or all of it anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one of the many "orky" articles. At least one of them somewhere should meet the criteria for inclusion. Although, I feel I must again point out that they aren't just a 40K thing).Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Normal way of handling these, no need to bring it here--talk page consensus is what was needed. DGG (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as I suggested last time. The last AfD has an exhaustive overview of the possible sources and their relationship to the subject (result: nil). The previous close resulted from vociferous and repeated opposition to deletion that largely amounted to WP:ILIKEIT or "it's notable". The article doesn't cite independent sources covering the subject and (just like the rest of the GW sub-articles), few are likely to exist. The article was redirected after the no consensus close but that redirect was reverted citing WP:IAR. Since then, no further sources have been added and no improvements made. IF someone feels this is a likely search term, they can make a redirect after deletion, but this article doesn't meet wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, we have learned since then--myself too, I said keep at the first afd-- and nobody here is proposing to keep the article as is. Now we have consensus for the merge, and it can be enforced. DGG (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too specific and specialized for Wikipedia. I'm happy for anything that's sourced to be merged as DGG suggests. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 14:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the "delete" reasons given in the first AfD. Any "references" appear to be insubstantial, trivial (in the truest sense of the word), and/or not independent of Games Workshop (please see, for example, the analysis of purported references I gave in the last AfD). --Craw-daddy | T | 10:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge, too specialised for WP (although i've heard of them somehow?!) Remake a redirect if needed. If there are articles on the Orc-type warhammer races, don't they already have all the relevant info, so merging would be purely for show?Yobmod (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- edit: checked greenskins - each race has only a single sentence, and Snotlings already covered, but if that article is to be their only representation, no problem to merge the 1 other cited info from here to there (changed vote).Yobmod (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all.. — Xy7 (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 1 Series 2 Waterloo Road

Not-notable enough to have its own article. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Also contains no reliable sources. D.M.N. (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

D.M.N. (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as they appear to be word-for-word duplicates of information found at List of Waterloo Road episodes, which is actually quite a good listing of the episodes. Even if they are kept, which I guess is possible, they need to be renamed to the form "Episde Title (Waterloo Road Episode)", or some such format. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Duplicate information (WP:SPINOUT), no evidence of notability (WP:N) or sources (WP:V, WP:RS). Since the show doesn't even give its episodes titles, the titles of these articles aren't likely search terms, and thus redirects aren't needed either. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplication of other material. I bet there's probably a wikiessay similar to WP:HAMMER to be had regarding untitled episodes, along the lines of "if the series can't be bothered to even name its episodes, are the episodes really notable enough for individual articles?" 23skidoo (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taro Yokoyama

This article has no real notability nor reference. This is purely vanity 69.234.126.61 (talk · contribs) Text copied from edit summary left when 69.234.126.61 placed the AfD tag. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 11:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing editor's note: Normally, I'd probably not list an anon's nomination with such a vague rationale; however, the references in the article are generic and don't mention the subject at all that I can see (and one of them is "as stated in several fansites" which is Not Good) and a quick Google shows the only hit on this Taro Yokoyama on the first page of results is to Wikipedia. So I'm listing here on the basis that others may chose to troutwhack me for my ignorance. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 11:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Only 7 Google hits for Taro.Yokoyama Givenchy: Copies of Wikipedia articles and [7], which seems to be a self-pulished entry. The only verifiable reference in the article is the link to style.com, which seems to be a fake - the linked page doesn't mention his name at all. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Prod-2}} This person is known throughout Japan & Hawaii as a high fashion model, I believe the Hokkaido High Fashion Magazine has an article on him in the fall/2008 issue.

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawn sweeper

Contested prod. I'm not sure where to begin here. Article is a mix of a dictionary definition, advertising, and original research. I would have tagged this for speedy, but was not sure where to put it. TN‑X-Man 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lawn mower. I know, mowing and sweeping are different tasks, but people generally do not purchase two separate machines for this purpose. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Extremely weak and feeble~~ Keep In its present form this article fails WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:V too (the "refs" are both links to commercial sites selling the machines). However, the lawn sweeper does appear to exist as a specialist piece of kit which is different from the lawn mower, so I'm not sure a redirect is appropriate. With all the howtos excised and a rewrite to make it more encyclopaedic, this would make a decent gardening stub. Ka renjc 17:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a separate device. Many manufacturers. IDONTUSEIT is not a reason to delete. DGG (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to leaf sweeper, since it sounds like the same device. (If not, then someone should clarify the differences.) I'd also suggest cleaning up the how-to information in lawn sweeper, although it's sort of ironic to suggest cleaning up an article about a tool used to clean up. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I have attacked this article, removing all the howto and starting to Wikify. I'm going to redirect Leaf sweeper to Lawn sweeper because it seems to be a more widespread term for the same article, judging from the gardening websites out there. I'll alter the {{types of tools}} template accordingly. Ka renjc 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am willing to withdraw this nomination based on the excellent cleanup by Karenjc, if there are no objections. Good work! TN‑X-Man 18:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted G11. Spam from a spam account. Nuked under G11 and nuked the editor at the same time. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 12:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loftlife magazine

Article created by someone with a WP:COI about a new magazine which is currently only being sold in a test market. Tagged for numerous issues, the article is WP:SPAM and fails to assert WP:N. Ros0709 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wooten (trooper)

I am the author of this page. I copied over the background of Mike Wooten in the expectation that the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal article was becoming too filled with information, that it had to be split into a 2nd subarticle. Now that significant edits have been made to the original article, that issue is no longer evident. All information about Wooten is sufficient as it pertains to the investigation, and by that measure, there is plenty of "fat" to trim from this article as well, plus the fact that this article has become a coatrack, now that the original is in working order again. But in doing so, it would become a clone of the text in the original article. The information in Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal is able to cover everything without the need of summary. Duuude007 (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal article, which has a lot of detail about Wooten, is already at 66kb. Furthermore, it will continue to grow for some time, as there are new developments practically every day. Just yesterday, some legislators filed a lawsuit to stop the investigation, and the state Attorney General said that state employees would not testify in response to subpoenas. These are just the latest procedural developments; we can expect further substantive revelations, as well. As the article grows, it will become even more important for the extensive detail about Wooten to be moved to the Wooten bio article, with only a summary left behind. Let's keep the separate Wooten article at least until the situation stabilizes, when we could consider consolidation. JamesMLane t c 16:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge ~~& redirect~~ to Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. See WP:ONEEVENT. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I second this, ~~with a redirect~~. edit: Nevermind, I just saw the disambig page. --Soyweiser (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there ever was a WP:BLP1E, this is it. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (leaving a redirect to Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal) per nominator (article is redundant) and others (one-event BLP). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Leave redirect, this article is an attempt to WP:COAT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talk • contribs)

Hey now (in response Arzel's accusation), I didn't create it as an attempt to make a coatrack. But I did submit it for deletion because I agree that is what it has become. Duuude007 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per A.B. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. Delete per previous BLP1E arguments. The redirect is unnecessary since the Mike Wooten disambiguation links directly to the dismissal article, providing more information than "Mike Wooten (trooper)". I skimmed the history of the main article since this subarticle's creation, and I didn't see any copying back that would create GFDL concerns. Flatscan (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E suggests, Cover the event, not the person. The overall event (Monegan's dismissal) is notable and has its own article. Wooten, his career, the investigation into his conduct, and his suspension in 2006 are not independently notable. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you mention no redirect, but I would like to note that Walt Monegan, the other minor name on the same page, also has a redirect that goes to the page. If this one has no redirect, then that one ought to be removed too under your logic. I would support whichever decision is consistent between both of them. Duuude007 (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Monegan has his own article. What Flatscan is saying is that the article Mike Wooten (without the parentheical) is a disamb page, which identifies the trooper (as distinguished from the ball player) and links to Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. Thus, no redirect is needed. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Kelly ^hi! 04:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the creator of the page has requested it and has given compelling reasons for doing so, even without having to consider BLP. 23skidoo (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 23skidoo and Kelly. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim it to it's bare essentials. Since much of the info is already in the Troopergate article it is redundant here. But to delete it because he's just famous for one thing, is inconsistent. Bob Beamon was also basically notable for just one thing, all his subsequent fame came from that one jump, we wouldn't have known about his Black Power positions hadn't he made that jump. Yet, I don't see calls for deleting his entry. Plus, Mike Wooten, (or if you will, the Mike Wooten case,) will affect much more people than Beamon, so to delete him, would go against the notable policy. Keep and trim, and move appropriate info to the Troopergate article.--CrashTestSmartie (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all, and WP:BLP1E. Grsz ^talk 15:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep BLP1E does not apply given that his career is now a national issue. Weak keep only, because I'm skeptical about breaking down each of her publicized deeds into separate articles. In any case there is a problem with excessive detail--The article needs editing. DGG (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add, his career is no longer merely a national issue, it's international now. Therefor I agree, that BLP1E does not apply. --CrashTestSmartie (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with its current separate state as a WP:COAT is also the fact that it could gain numerous inaccuracies that aren't properly maintained, as the source article receives every day. There are plenty of those even now, if I compare the fixes that have been made to the source article. Who will commit to keeping this WP:BLP article WP:NPOV, and judge the right time to move over content from the original article, summarizing it there? That is a massively daunting task. If noone in this conversation is willing to step up to that, I urge "keep" voters to reconsider whether this article will really do what it was intended to do: tell the facts accurately as an encyclopedia. Duuude007 (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Or at the very least change the article to be about the controversy over his firing, as it is worthy of an article. Merge with redirect as this remains an important topic. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 00:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, did you read the nominator's reason for deletion? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.190.207 (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — Individual is notable under the biography guidelines as I read them, and most of the arguments for deletion seem to be regarding items that can be fixed by an editor, such as duplication of material and insufficient coverage of other aspects of his life. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information is important and should remain easily accessible. The Alaska Public Safety Comissioner Dismissal (APSCD) article has at least two layers: the underlying issues surrounding mr. Mike Wooten, and the processes surrounding mr. Walt Monegan. Regarding the article maintenance problems, I suggest that the APSCD article should concentrate on the latter layer, and refer to the Mike Wooten article for the first layer. I believe the intelligent reader will want to know if there is any real substance to the allegations against Mike Wooten, before judging the second layer. Due to the size of the text, it is much easier to estimate said substance based on a dedicated article. PerezTerron (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep STOP DELETING PAGES ON WIKIPEDIA! IF THERE IS DUPLICATION, REMOVE IT! IMPROVE NOT DESTROY! Chendy (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the point, the whole article is inherently a duplicate of the source. it should be removed in its entireity, and at most have a redirect go back to the source. Duuude007 (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per DGG. Issues that have gotten international coverage are hard to claim there is a BLP1E issue. Moreover, BLP1E is intended by and large for flash-in-the-pan style things, not serious corruption scandals. Finally, if one of our underlying ideas behind BLP is "do no harm" then that isn't an issue here. Given the vast amount of continuing coverage there's no way a Wikipedia article influences that at all. However, even given all that, I don't think I'll complain loudly if this is redirected to Troopergate which has most of this material anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Investigation is heating up and ongoing, so there is interest in Wooten. Wikipedia isn't paper. We66er (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). VG ☎ 20:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political Forecasting

~~Vague claims of notability, not supported by references. Essentially an elaborate advertisement page (db-spam was denied without prejudice). VasileGaburici (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)~~ Nom withdrawn; term was used at least since the 80's in scholarly articles, so it seems a valid encyclopedic subject; oddly enough Wikipedia did not have an article on it. VG ☎ 20:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political Forecasting attempts to be a higher-level theory page for PollyVote. But it mostly duplicates material from PollyVote, and the substantive references are subset of those from PollyVote. Given that User:Pollyvote created Political Forecasting, this shouldn't come as a surprise. A quick google search shows that "political forecasting" is practically a synonym for pollyvote. PollyVote is clearly a notable article, no issue there, but the attempt to present Political Forecasting as a genuine separate notion or theory is dubious at best. VasileGaburici (talk) 11:57, 18 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) 00:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant and unique information into the article on PolyVote (perhaps as a subsection with this article's title) -Markeer 01:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article lacks proper citations and is severely underdeveloped, but political forecasting is a legitimate area of academic study. A variety of major international organizations, including the United Nations, regularly publish political forecasts and there is a small, but very real, number of academics in universities around the US that would consider themselves to be political forecasters. I, myself, took a course on political forecasting in graduate school. As it stands, the article is crap, but the topic itself is notable and legitimate. --Mai Pen Rai (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – More than enough Scholarly books on the subject matter, as shown here [8]] to establish a piece here on Wikipedia. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ff m 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Rain Genomics

Contested prod. Article has one link toa book spending a paragraph on thiswebsite. Apart from that, all I was able to find from reliable sources are a few that acknowledged using it, but nothing else about the website. This Google News search using FallingRain (the alternative name for FR Genomics) yields nothing of value[9]. The site is probably useful in some circumstances (and very unreliable in other ones), but usefulness is not a reason to keep an article. Fram (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article suffers from a lack of a link to www.fallingrain.com ; that aside, the question is whether site this has attracted attention, and if a search doesn't confirm that it has, I don't see a reason for keeping it. ~~While, at first, the google search suggests that there are 134,000 ghits it actually works out to 216~~ . I gave the site a try, and to me it appears difficult to navigate. Once the problems are worked out, it may be more useful as a service. Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually weakening an argument for deletion here, but your Google count of 216 is a typical google count error. Google only gives the number of distinct pages in the first 1,000 results, not in all 134,000. Similarly, Wikipedia also only has about 430 distinct hits if you scroll to the end of the Google search results. Google believes apparently that no one goes looking beyond 1,000 hits, which is often very annoying. Fram (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, and I appreciate the clarification. I remember once when I was citing ghits in support of keeping an article, an editor called me a liar because I hadn't gone to the end to get the "true" number. Up until now, I wasn't sure why there were different numbers, and that's extremely helpful. I remain unpersuaded by the article itself about how much fallingrain is actually used. Mandsford (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep if only by virtue of the fact that a search of "falling rain genomics" site:wikipedia.org returns 14,500 hits. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that use Falling Rain's data. The site is not terribly easy to navigate, but that alone does not disqualify listing. Horologium (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits are not a show of notability. Reliable sources are. Corvus cornix_talk 18:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak no consensus all this talk about usefulness of the site and its navigability is as if we use subjective original research to determine notability. That's just maddening. And Ghits are not the sole arbiter of notability, either. If we do not have the time or inclination to scrutinize this article under the notability criteria, let's just keep it by default until we do. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. or nomination withdrawn, take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armands Strazds

This subject is not notable. A search for independent resources has yielded nothing and it is not even clear whether or not the composers works have ever been performed professionally. Furthermore, this article was deleted in an AFD two years ago and then recreated by the same SPA account that created it the first time with no one noticing.Nrswanson (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He may be more prominent in Latvia, but access to their press is difficult. This is what I could find:

List of publications on official web site + Google Scholar results
Nomination for what appears to be a theatre award (Spēlmaņu Nakts) in Latvian.
Interview in the Latvian music journal, Mūzikas Saule.
Something on Latvijas Radio 1 (The national public radio station. Haven't got a clue what it says)
About a performance of his oratorio Gitanjali (in German)
Something about music he composed for the film Dark Wave – Im Flug der Libellen in the Newsletter of Deutsch-Polnische Gesellschaft der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (in German)

I'll post a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latvia and see if they can shed any light.Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Never heard of him, but I'm not interested in Latvian music and theatre. But as for your link collection - Spēlmaņu Nakts is a seasonal award ceremony of national importance. That's schedule of Latvijas Radio broadcast for November 27, 2005 - it apears to be a radio drama for which he has composed music. IMHO it amounts at least some notability ~~Xil (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I'm inclined to say keep in light of Xil's comments. Plus, his "Zime" project (also spelled "Zīme" in Latvian and sometimes "Zimej") was the Latvia Pavillion's central exhibit at Expo 2000. See his write-up in German on the Expo 2000 official site (scroll down to STRAZDS, ARMANDS and click on the link). The Zime project site has photos of the President of Latvia at the time, Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, generating a Zime in the Pavillion. Voceditenore (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Update I'm even more inclined to keep after finding this article devoted to Strazds in Latvijas Avīze, one of the main newspapers in Latvia. Voceditenore (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all sources above ~~Xil (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the efforts of voceditenore in finding sources in foreign press, etc. As I am the one who nominated this in the first place I think an admin could reasonably close this with a keep now.Nrswanson (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Pedro. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 12:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SG(People)

Hoax and/or nonsense. VasileGaburici (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article, which is completely lacking references, claims that Kevin Ashman is a girl?! VasileGaburici (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G3) Complete nonsense, tagged as such. treelo _radda 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#A7 - no assertion of notability Pedro : Chat 10:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Jordan

No relevant sources. The article describes a non-notable person: "little known" etc. Appears to be self-promotion or hoax. Gimme danger (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax/vanity/joke article. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. NN, unref, no ghits, probably a hoax. -- Alexf⁴² 10:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glamper

Delete as neologism. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 09:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable neologism. Nuttah (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why was this relisted? Neologism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a neologistic dictdef, or as a dictdefdic neologism. Whaaatever. --Lockley (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Leaning towards keep. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTFPL

Non-notable software license, used on only a handful of projects - most of which are minor coding projects by the license author. Only secondary source is a post to debian-legal several years ago inquiring as to its suitability as a DFSG-approved license; there are no reliable secondary sources. External coverage appears to consist entirely of user-generated content or blog posts, from a look at Google. Previous AfD basically predicated the keep on the one source which says that the FSF has looked at it, but given that the FSF's job is to look at licenses this is hardly a stand-out feature. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Verified but not shown to be notable by reliable sources. Include in the author's article if absolutely necessary. gnfnrf (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep About 48k ghits now, listed on FSF license page, featured on prominent software blogs, several Linux distributions, Gentoo 1, 2; Fedora ship software licensed under the wtfpl, license listing on freshmeat. In the ghits you see people discussing it 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; licensing blogs or artwork, about 10 - 15 coders using the wtfpl, 1, 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fafnir665 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of those links points to a discussion of the license or indeed anything resembling substantial content. Several are automatically generated, most of the rest are user-generated aggregations, a couple are forums, one is a blog post and one is an SVG file (wtf). "Featured in several Linux distributions" isn't a threshold for notability, which is why we don't have an article for every keyboard layout the X Window System is distributed with. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, its obvious you didn't even follow more than, maybe, one of the links. X-Windows layouts are irrelevant to this discussion. SVG "file" is a wikipedia link, follow it to an image on wikipedia with the wtfpl. None are automatically generated. Kthnx Fafnir665 (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You didn't follow that text block properly. "Featured on blogs," "Software included with licenses in several distros," were separate statements in a list, follow the commas and the semi-colons. Here is a link to a page on logical fallacies for you. Maybe it can help you better form an argument about facts rather than attacking my credibility? Fafnir665 (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My issue was with the quality of the references, not your credibility. I've looked through each of those links and it doesn't matter how many discrete instances of software under the WTFPL you find if there are no reliable (i.e. not forum or blog) secondary sources which have discussed it. Right now, nothing more of that type exists with the exception of the FSF ruling, which as I've pointed out isn't as exceptional as was made out in the first AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FSF link is not to an e-mail about the WTFPL, it is to the inclusion of it on their license page, which was never discussed in the previous AfD. Fafnir665 (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here, its also listed on the Fedora Project Licensing page as a "Good License" Fafnir665 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Fedora link is a wiki, and the FSF one is a trivial reference on a long page of licenses. As I said before, the FSF's job is evaluating licenses, so individual instances being stamped as acceptable is hardly a significant claim of notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fedora page was created by fedora manager, member of the board, and maintainer of a large number of packages. Check the history. Second is your personal opinion not an objective statement. Fafnir665 (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fafnir665. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my heart wants to keep this, because it makes me laugh. My brain says it isn't really notable. --SJK (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere? Being listed by fsf.org gives it a nonzero amount of notability, but there's really not much else to add about this license. If there is a List of free software licenses or such, perhaps it can be merged and redirected. --Itub (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was suggested on the talk page, but someone decided it should be deleted instead Fafnir665 (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable, the new creative commons CC Zero[10] is a follow up on this license, common sense over wikilaw, both Debian (Windowmaker) and Ubuntu are sharp on included licenses, by accepting the license and including it in the Distro, they confirm notability. Mion (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence whatsoever that the Creative Commons license you linked is a descendent of the WTFPL, or is that conjecture on your part? Inclusion in Debian is no threshold for notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This pipermail from creative commons in Poland, with a WTFPL link [11], for the latter, thats your personal opinion, which i dont share. Mion (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Fafnir665 (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that email is incomprehensible to me, it does not appear to contain any evidence of the sort. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that the WTFPL sofar the only license is that compatible is with CC Zero ?

Keep - Notable license with multiple independent third-party sources. Deletion would harm the encyclopedia. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl choi

Fails WP:NOTE, I think. Seems to be autobiographical; orphaned. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 08:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references given, appears promotional. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 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) 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete; non-notable, no references, promotional. Kill it already. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 00:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I relisted because the only further info was a !vote from the nom, so it still needs more consensus. That said, I'm not finding any evidence of notability via reliable sources. TravellingCari 01:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single WP:RS listed, lots of puffery, lack of improvement after relisting. Nuke it. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Clubmarx (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the visionary and creative brainchild behind the company, Carl is responsible for Plan C's remarkable accomplishments and growth. Sickening. Textbook case of Geogre's Law. JuJube (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Proskuryakov

Fails notability Kwedin (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, players of the top league of major hockey countries are inherently notable. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a member of one of the top hockey leagues in the world, this player is indeed notable. --David7581 (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep KHL is second only to the NHL; professional league. Not really much doubt. MadScot (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 01:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SoReal Cru

This article is definitely damaged goods, but I also feel that even if it were repaired to meet our WP:NPOV the group itself has yet to receive non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale I've as nominator, lacks notability as an organization WP:ORG and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 06:22, 19 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) 00:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has yet to receive the non-trivial coverage as required for these type of subjects to receive inclusion. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GFV

This is a dubious neologism and I doubt if the cited reference ("100 Years of Australian Football 1897-1996") supports this usage. The social activity described of people dropping in on other people to watch football on TV doesn't deserve an article, at least from the narrow perspective taken. Grahame (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not about something made up one day by a single-purpose user. WWGB (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is close to falling into the nonsense speedy deletion category. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax article.--Lester 11:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, WP:DICDEF. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find at least one easily verifiable secondary reference, and with Grand Final coming up, you would expect something if the term was in wide use.--Takver (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:NFT - Longhair\^talk 09:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Akiko Hatsu

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnotable manga artist; tagged for notability since January with no improvement. No significant coverage for this artist. Fails WP:BIO.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this artist has produced around 40 manga works (many multiple volumes, too), all published through major publishers in Japan over the last 25+ years. Her works are generally highly regarded as well. None of her works have been published in English as far as I know, but she is very well known in Japan. I'm working on getting more information and more sources (not that the ones there are invalid for any reason). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I should also note that all four sources are not simply for her (never heard of a guy named "Akiko") list of works. Did you not notice them being used in the intro? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed my pronoun usage and remove misstatement. FYI, per AfD guidelines, you should note that you are the article creator when commenting keep/delete/etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People who care can check the article history (it's not all that long). Just because I created the article doesn't make my opinion any less valid, especially if I raise legitimate points. I'm not saying "Keep" just because I created the article (though I realize some people do that). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've sorted this discussion into the list of Living people-related deletion discussions and the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (adjunct professors count as educators, right?)

Comment: The main problem here is that the article suffers a bit from WP:HOLE. I hope my recent addition about her being a co-coiner of the term yaoi does something to alleviate that concern. -Malkinann (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Certainly not notable academically and does not pass any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. May be notable as an artist under WP:CREATIVE but at the moment the case is not particularly convincing. The article says that "she coined the term yaoi with Yasuko Sakata". If that is correct, it may be sufficient for passing WP:CREATIVE under "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." However, I am confused by the references given in the article to support this point. This reference[12] (currently ref no. 3) says:"The term yaoi was coined in the late seventies by Kanazawa region dojinshi artists included Yasuko Sakata and Rinko Hatsu." Here is another ref (not currently listed)[13]:"The origin of term of Yaoi was from the manifesto of Kanazawa region-based group (e.g. Rinko Hatsu and Yasuko Sakata) that they ironically called the content of their dojinshi were “Yamanashi, Ochinashi, and Iminashi." Are Rinko Hatsu and Akiko Hatsu the same person or two different people? Nsk92 (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, perhaps Rinko was her pen-name at some point? The book clearly states Akiko Hatsu. -Malkinann (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the hits I see for the term ascribe it to Rinko Hatasu, however, as mentioned above, you can clearly see it credited to the subject here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added later: She is cited as Akiko in the Saito Tamaki article that Malkinann quoted. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With that much manga published in Japan, Akiko Hatsu is notable enough for inclusion here. If her work is translated in print, then it will be more obvious to English-only audiences. However, two of her works -- Devil in the Water and Mourning of Autumn Rain -- are presently available in ebook format from Adobe (see http://ebooks.ebookmall.com/author/hatsu-akiko-ebooks.htm). Timothy Perper (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't aware we had a WP:DEADLINE, but even so I'm ambivalent on this one. I just find it odd that if this artist does indeed have 30+ works under their belt, why do we (and ANN) only have two listed? If I saw just, say, 3-4 more I'd say keep. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the subject's role in orginating the concept of yaoi, and the volume of her work. Assuming the link I cited above in reply to Nsk92 is accurate, I feel her role is sufficient to meet WP:CREATIVE. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It'd be a weak one based on WP:CREATIVE, at least what's given here, were it not for coining (or being credited with coining) a significant term. If it stated (with a source) that her works are "highly regarded" in Japan, then it wouldn't be weak in the first place. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since I'm a beginning Wikipedia editor, I don't know the ins and outs of WP notability requirements, so I'll tell you what I know. Hatsu was an assistant to Moto Hagio in the 1970s, and was prominent in the dōjinshi community before making her commercial debut in 1981. In 1979, as a member of a dōjinshi group that included Yasuko Sakata (who also went on to become a prominent professional manga artist), she participated in a group discussion about the dōjinshi world which was printed in the group's self-published dōjinshi, Rappori. The idea that many dōjinshi were "Yama nashi, ochi nashi, imi nashi" (having "No climax, no point, no meaning") was frequently discussed among community members, but this group discussion is the first known usage of the acronym "Yaoi". After her professional debut, Hatsu was picked up Junya Yamamoto, the editor in chief of Petit Flower and highly regarded "father of the Year 24 Group. Hatsu was representative of the literary, slightly intellectual atmosphere of Petit Flower, which included work by most of the artists considered to belong to the Year 24 Group, as well as such prominent post-Year 24 Group artists as Ryōko Yamagishi, Tomoko Naka, Shio Satō, Masumi Moriwaki, etc. Hatsu is known for angular faces of her characters, which are immediately recognizable to anyone even vaguely familiar with the shōjo manga artists of her generation. She is also known for her technical skill, attention to detail, and refusal to "fudge" or "wing" anything. Many casual readers find the "sharp" look of her characters off-putting, but she continues to have a solid following, and as I write has about 36 tankōbon in print (some of which are different editions of the same works). She is currently one of the star artists of the magazine manga magazine Nemuki, which also features such creators as Ichiko Ima and Baku Yumemakura. She taught as an adjunct professor in Kyoto Seika University's Department of Comic Art for several years. I should note that she is a friend and former colleague of mine. I also wrote the afterword for Vol. 5 of the bunko ("pocketbook") edition of her 雨柳堂夢咄 (Uryūdō yume banashi). BTW, "Rinko" is simply an amateurish mistake by someone who was too lazy to look up the proper pronunciation of the name 彬子. She never had such a pen name, and there is no such person. Matt Thorn (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide verifiable, reliable sources for all of this? -Malkinann (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Matt needs to provide refs for everything he's saying here. What we need instead, I think, are some selected refs showing that Hatsu was/is a well-known mangaka of the period in Japan and was/is highly respected as an artist. Once again, just because her work is unfamiliar to many Anglophone readers does not mean that she is "not notable" for our purposes. Actually, given Matt's status in this field, I'd say that his judgment is quite sufficient to show that Hatsu is notable. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Providing solid references is not a problem. Matt Thorn (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be deeply helpful if you could add that, with the sources, to the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear claims of notability and article is very well sourced for its size, especially considering most sources would be in Japanese. Edward321 (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An originator of the term "yaoi", extensive body of work, influential drawing style (this last might be hard to reference, but I'm willing to take Matt Thorn's word for it for now). I also comment Thorn for his full disclosure. That kind of thing is appreciated by many Wikipedians, and he shouldn't take a few negative reactions as typical. I expect the nom will withdraw any moment now.... --C S (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This appears to be a case of WP:SNOWBALL. Anyone want to grab an uninvolved admin to close this? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bump mapping (sixth generation consoles)

Mixture of original research and nonsense. VasileGaburici (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the title this article claims to be about bump mapping implementation techniques in "sixth generation consoles". What this article actually contains (by section):

"What are they": a catalog of bump mapping theoretical concepts, covered in detail elsewhere.
"Implementing":
- a few hardware details about various game consoles, probably covered elsewhere (didn't check all).
- An unsourced speculative analysis that attempts to determine how well-suited are the various consoles to implement bump mapping. This seems original research.
"Issues with use on PS2/GC":
- An original research analysis that details how well bump mapping looks in various PS2/GC games, and attempts to guess what bump mapping techinique was used in each game.

Bottom line: this article engages in speculation, lacks any technical depth, and when read start to end, doesn't make any sense. VasileGaburici (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per VasileGaburici. Rilak (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ouch, that's the essence of original research. Equendil Talk 08:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- what's useful is elsewhere, and what's original isn't very good. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the information can be added to bump mapping and then the article can be deleted.--SkyWalker (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Original research does not pay; you cannot make non-trivial assumptions or inferences from sources. MuZemike (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pagent != Notability seicer | talk | contribs 00:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brintha Vasagar

Claim of notability for one reason only, winning a pageant that doesn't even have a WP entry. Unreferenced, with no articles linking to it. Bongomatic (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, and that one event isn't particularly notable. TheMolecularMan (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, not notable. Braddaman1 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but will reconsider if she becomes a future VP nominee Politics n such (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Screwball (ice cream). NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Ball Screwball

No claim of notability and no reference (nor evidence of existence) after being tagged for ~three months. Bongomatic (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here at least is a 'standard' screwball. I wasn't even convinced that existed. And here is a 'Two Ball Screwball'. So it exists. Don't know about notability, though. MadScot (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 18 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) 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionpedia

Non-notable web site, fails WP:WEB. One short article at TheStandard.com, and the link to Slashdot is merely a pickup of that. Just doesn't clear the notability bar. And of course, when it's deleted, you can read about it there. Ironic, isn't it? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Question (rhetorical): It was mentioned by The Wall Street Journal too; WP:WEB says "multiple non-trivial published works"; does "multiple" mean >1? :-) 67.101.5.132 (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I've worked on the article a bit more, and the website no long fails WP:WEB as Realkyhick (talk · contribs) initially asserted. It now "describes the site in an encyclopedic manner and offers detail on ...significance" and cites reliable independent sources, with notability established by being the subject of multiple sources. So what's left is the chance to make this the subject of yet another deletionists and inclusionists clash. :-) 67.101.5.132 (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Uh, did anyone actually check the new references? The WSJ article mentions Deletionpedia exactly once. Yep, once, and it was definitely a passing, trivial mention in a larger article about deletion vs. inclusion. The Dutch site mentions it twice in one single paragraph, but I'll be danged if I can figure out what else it says because I don't read Dutch — for all I know, it says Deletionpedia is a porn site. All of the other "new" references are either from Deletionpedia itself, or don't mention it at all and only speak of deletion vs. inclusion in more general terms. Folks, do not make this AfD a straw man for the larger deletion-vs.-inclusion debate, because it is not. It is about this one article about a non-notable web site, and that's all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonest statement. It's not a non-notable web site but a web site some people don't want to be mentioned on wikipedia. Maybe because it can be used to support the mentioned debate by showing some very well written articles which were deleted anyway. But the project is useful in itself and none of this makes it or this deletion request discussion a straw man. -- 80.139.32.34 (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not dishonest in the least, and I strongly resent you stating otherwise. It is a non-notable website that is merely a repository of deleted Wikipedia articles (including many that I suspect you disagree with the deletion), and it got a big Slashdot jump one day. Six months from now when this all dies down, we'll all be saying, "So what was the big deal? How the heck did this get on here in the first place?" - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you admit, it is currently notable. Surely, it will eventually lose notability, as will everything. When it does lose notability, then write another deletion request. Until then, it should stay. MaxHarmony (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. Once something is notable it does not lose that notability. Davewild (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation for Realkyhick-- I don't read Dutch either, but Google's machine translation does . . . well enough for me to ascertain that the article in De Telegraaf really is about "Deletionpedia" and does not say it is a porn site. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suspected as much - it was more of a lame attempt at humor. But with the Dutch, you never know. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia (2nd nomination) (now closed, was the product of a TW edit conflict). - Icewedge (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I guess my Twinkle is faster than yours. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TheStandard.com article is the only original notice of this in a reliable secondary source, according to a Google; no prejudice against recreating in the event of more substantial coverage. TheMolecularMan (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Changing to keep now that more substantial coverage has emerged. TheMolecularMan (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Realkyhick|Talk to me]]) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep It's relatively new, but it consists of a considerable body of content that a large number of people felt was notable, even if the majority of people paying attention here at the time did not. Not a scientific sample to be sure, but the very first entry I came across Edward Tudor seems notable enough to me. --Belg4mit (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does this make the website itself notable? - Icewedge (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The transitive property. --Belg4mit (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure the transitive property does not apply to WP:N, or at least not in that way. If it did nearly every website would be notable. - Icewedge (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, if the deleted subjects were notable, they would not have been deleted. Just because it's a "considerable body of content" doesn't make it notable by any means. I could simply copy-and-pastethe phrase "CHICKEN POO! CHICKEN POO!" 100,000 times over at a web site and it would be a considerable body of content, but otherwise useless. This site isn't much better. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You place a greater faith in the system than here than I do, and clearly expressed in my original note. And no, your hypothetical site does not consititute a "considerable body of content." Besides the utter pointless of such a thing, I would propose that anything which could be compressed 99% with RLE is not considerable.--Belg4mit (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you have little faith in the system here because "the system" keeps ridding itself of articles about non-notable subjects, an assessment with which you disagree on a regular basis. Well, you're probably screwed in this case. By the way, "transitive property" doesn't have a bloody thing to do with Wikipedia notability, thank goodness. And you can RLE that all day and night. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual articles in Deletionpedia are not merely not notable, they are typically so egregiously non-notable as to be ROFL. I particularly enjoyed, from the front page, the "concise list of films with monkeys in them" article, which was not only laughable in that it listed only three films, none of the three films actually had monkeys in them! The notability of the site is not for the notability of what it archives, but for the nature of it, and most interestingly for the insight into the nature of deleted articles.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we should keep this because the site makes fun of stupid deleted WP articles? That's what makes it notable? (Sigh...) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all understood that you are against the site and the article. You can now refrain from telling over and over again. -- 80.139.32.34 (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you have twisted my statements around. I am not against the site in the least. But I am against the article, because I don't believe the site meets notability standards. Just because a site isn't notable enough for Wikipedia doesn't mean I'm against it. Heck, I run sites that I wouldn't even think of being notable enough for WP, but they should still exist (if for no other reason than to pay might light bill). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navel-gazing, with little in the way of sources to write a proper article. Apparently made in response to a Slashdot post. Hi Slashdotters! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single article newspaper article, about half of which is criticizing Wikipedia is more suitable for a short note in Criticism of Wikipedia, probably in the "notability" section. The Slashdot discussion revolved around deletionism vs. inclusionism in Wikipedia; that's hardly hardly an endorsement for deletionpedia. VasileGaburici (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question — Isn't Wikia a good enough place for those articles who do not make Wikipedia muster, or is it not desirable because it doesn't have the adequate search engine optimization capabilities that Wikipedia has? MuZemike (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just think, in just a few days they will be able to host a copy of their own deleted Wikipedia article!! JBsupreme (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've switched my !vote as a result of recent changes made to the article, it appears this website has received coverage from multiple third parties which meet our guidelines for reliable sources. So much for the massive paradox. JBsupreme (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep now that it's being fleshed out a bit. Forget the Large Hadron Collider, that will make the Internets implode! ~~(also delete).~~ Prince of Canada^{t | c} 09:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. That's the kind of site that's going to generate quite a bit of buzz solely due to it being related to Wikipedia itself, but there doesn't seem to be all that much non trivial coverage atm. Plus the irony of it all is damn tempting. Equendil Talk 09:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just updated the article, fleshing it out, adding an infobox and categories; I also cited how WSJ called it a response to the culture clash that exists on Wikipedia between deletionists and inclusionists as well as explained what The Industry Standard thought about Deletionpedia too (hint: we Wikipedia editors are guilty of groupthink). Perhaps mentioning the culture clash will make the outcome of this vote even more ironic. :-) BTW, I can't recall whether we editors-who-don't-always-log-in when contributing get to vote or not. It used to be allowed, and if it still is, I vote Keep... 67.101.5.132 (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Transwiki to Deletionpedia 70.51.8.158 (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe by default everything sent to AfD should be transwiki'd there? 70.51.8.158 (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article deals with a subject which is both better cited and more notable than many other small wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is strong enough to withstand criticism, competition, etc as presented by the subject of this article. - JustinWick (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is saying WP can't take the criticism; the article simply fails WP [{WP:WEB|policies]]. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 10:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fail WP:WEB any more, and it wasn't that hard to fix. I think the rapid proposal to delete without giving it a chance to develop a bit is an unfortunate side effect of the overall positive benefits of having new page patrollers. 67.101.5.132 (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment In the process of adding more details to the Deletionpedia article, I stumbled on this June 2008 version of the page for the website Malwarecity, the latest and greatest version of an article created only 30 minutes earlier that same June day. Anyone know why the users of new page patrol tools let Malwarecity remain in Wikipedia this long while Deletionpedia got marked for speedy deletion within one minute of its creation? Sigh. 68.167.252.78 (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

We have to sleep sometime, y'know. But thanks for bringing it to our attention. Malwarecity has been marked for speedy deletion now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that WP cannot handle this sort of criticism, however the sheer virulence of those asking for a delete leads me to suspect that there is an emotional component of some sort. Perhaps I'm in error on this. In any case, my comment stands, though I should probably issue the disclaimer that, generally speaking, I'm a Mergist and feel that Deletionism is an excellent way to discourage users by destroying their work. After all, why should anyone bother to be bold if it leads to naught over some Deletionist crusader's subjective opinions about what matters in the world? - 66.30.18.60 (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is nice that such site exists. Deletion of the correct articles just because they are "non-notable" is in my opinion the worst thing that happen to Wikipedia. Even if we delete this article, the link to deletionpedia should be put in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WWMPD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.65.67 (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage is fairly substantial Daimanta (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the shear enjoyment of seeing an article about Deletionpedia in Deletionpedia. :o) okay actually let's call it a Weak Keep based on precedent of similar 'pedia articles staying here and a liberal dose of WP:IAR. Although, I'd definitely remove some of the primary sourcing and suggest a rewrite for grammer and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That IS ironic. It also exposes a very ugly truth about Wikipedia, and that's the REAL reason this article is up for afd right now, isn't it? keep per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Really funny, guys. Slapping an AfD on something 24 minutes old. You might not care about your impression, but this just shows how some WP editors are just intolerant of criticism. --58.69.180.227 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this wrong (note I "voted" keep above) but, you guys that are simply "accusing" others might want to address some of the policies/guidelines or something, otherwise the whole discussion becomes pointless. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Non-trival third-party coverage in publications such as Industry Standard and the Wall Street Journal is more than enough to satisfy notability under WP:WEB, and just about any other policy I can think of. Some of the arguments above seem to imply that there must be quantity in terms of third-party coverage. Nuh-uh. It takes only one. PS. I just took a peek at the site: aside from the fact they'll have a field day if their own article is deleted I'm also noting they're having server problems similar to that experienced due to high traffic by Wikipedia. That may be neither here nor there, but could be a sign of notable usage, if the Wall Street Journal isn't considered a good enough source for this article. 23skidoo (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm also noting they're having server problems similar to that experienced due to high traffic by Wikipedia." Most likely the problems are due to high-traffic due to [slashdot], not due to Wikipedia. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable web site. I took the time to read WP:WEB and it doesn't fail the criteria as far as I can tell. I won't defend it because the Nominator has not made a sufficient case, rather rhetoric without substance behind the nomination. You can't just say a site is non-notable and fails WP:WEB without actually explaining how and why. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Deleting this article looks, to me, like more of an exercise in the behavior it decries, than actual productive maintenance of Wikipedia. I echo the two posters above me. (Oh, look; hi, 23; funny meeting you here. :-)
--Baylink (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have anything to prove. The verifiability of the subject is what matters, not the subject itself, and this should be no exception. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia until we have a few more sources for a split. It's got sources so it's worth mentioning, but not well covered enough for its own article. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It clarifies interesting insight about the normally-invisible workings of Wikipedia, which is notable, and thus transitively is notable. But, for that matter, the article refers to external sources which seem to make it meet the explicit notability criteria.. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mention in the Wall Street Journal is enough for me to show that this is notable. I guess it was inevitable that someone would create an afterlife for articles that get killed here. It's nice to know that in "the culture clash between deletionists and inclusionists", we can now say "Ship this one off to Deletionpedia." Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the absence of a suitable merge target. This wiki doesn't have Earth-shattering notability, but the article is good enough to keep it on wikipedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with merging it to here? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I would not have a problem with merging this to D&I in WP. (Yeah I shoulda checked to see if that article existed first. My bad.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Weak keep. It probably fails the letter of WP:WEB - the WSJ article may as well be a prototype of trivial mention, and the Standard.com/Slashdot/Dutch references are essentially one article repeated three times. Still, I think that a bit of systemic bias could be in play here, as its existence is an implied criticism of Wikipedia, and I would rather err towards keeping the article it an attempt to counter that. The merge suggestion a couple of entries above has some merit as well, although it's not the most intuitive target. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is it really non-notable, or just a touchy subject? This is ridiculous. novakreo (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a strong argument for non-notability. Multiple sources are writing about it, and the article is properly written. I expect the article has been cleaned up since nomination. The article should exist for now, and if there is still conviction to delete, renom it in a few months after it has stabilized. -Verdatum (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong Keep Stronimo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Explodicle (T/C) 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It strikes me that the article makes a fairly obvious case for significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Potential embarrassment over the subject seems to be the chief problem with the article, and that doesn't amount to a case for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I seem to have trouble finding the claim that this article is embarrassing or any other comments that could make me think the nominators nomination wasn't completely in good faith. I don't think it'd fair that the people discussing keep and delete are looking at completely different nominations; Assuming in good faith as I am that you aren't accusing the nominator of bad faith when he was perfectly valid in at least making sure the article was discussed. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the articles cited in this article seem to establish notability. Give WP:RESCUE a go on this before blitzing it. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If we delete it, there will be additional news stories about how we deleted this article and it was moved to the very site it was about. Which will make it even more notable. The site is notable and will grow more so no matter what is decided here. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. As one of the evil deletionists I would have a conflict of interest in voting unless I were so ambivalent as to abstain anyway. Therefore when I say I agree with both A Man In Black and Xymmax, and that I think WAS 4.250 has a good crystal ball, I should just be ignored. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering how arbitrary Wikipedia articles can be kept or deleted at times, this serves as a good back-up and can help some editors blow off some steam---more so than Conservapedia, which even Jimbo Wales kinda praised. Yartett (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. sufficient sources. In any case I think NPOV makes it necessary for us to be sure to resolve any doubt towards including articles that might make us look bad. Excluding them makes us look even worse. DGG (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's now substantial and well-referenced enough that wanting to delete it is pretty much indefensible. "I don't like it" is not a basis for deletion. Languagehat (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is there a page on criticism on wikipedia? It should probably even be linked from such a page. -- Kju (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps it failed WP:WEB when this was initially nominated for deletion, but that certainly is not the case now. RFerreira (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of 9 Sources, only 1 major source, which features a superbly trivial mention [14], consisting of nothing but a passing mention without even defining the site. The only articles actually dedicated to the site are an averagely notable article [15] and a foreign language article [16] that while i can't confirm the importance of, makes itself the only serious source, and then only if it is a major source. Another 4 of the sources [17][18][19][20] are completely unacceptable as sources of it's Notability, one being completely trivial and the other 3 being the actual site itself. The final two sites [21] don't even mention Deletionpedia, though one [22] uses the term Deletopedia at the last moment, while the content is dedicated to Wikipedia. I don't believe there to be any serious non-trivial sources, and I hope the closing Admin isn't swayed by numbers considering at least 6 of the keeps I read above this either provided no reasoning or were in somewhat bad faith. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep — as much as I don't like it, it meets the WP:GNG for having several reliable sources. MuZemike (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Multiple reliable sources. Meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could the previous two keeps give examples of "multiple" reliable sources with Significant coverage of the article topic? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. The Industry Standard article is all about Deletionpedia (3 paragraphs but still decent). The Telegraaf article is slightly shorter and gives a few more details. That's two, two reliable sources. So we're done. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Unfortunately, The Industry Standard is not a Major source, so we can't even Make up 2 Major English Language Sources. If this was notable it would be easy to leave out sources, however, this article struggles to even reach the minimum i would expect. And i like the website... - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What do you mean by "major"? We don't need major sources. WP:N calls for non-trivial sources, and it meets that. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        By major, I mean major. WP:N calls for multiple non-trivial sources, it fails that. As for the many other criteria, Verifiability is based upon the communities ability to trust a source, which is of course easiest from a major, or serious source as opposed to "The Industry Standard". On the other hand, you seem to just assert that it complies with policy in every argument without putting forward any reason but to say you disagree, which is far from helpful to discussion, so I won't be responding again. Remember that you're allowed to read arguments and change your position. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I did explain. WP:N calls for non-trivial, not "major" as you yourself observed. They have very different meanings. Non-trivial, is a low-burden. Major is a large burden. See the difference? (Oh and incidentally, while were discussing what WP:N says, the language of the sources is generally irrelevant. Whether we can find sources in English has no bearing on the matter). JoshuaZ (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems to have enough references to establish notability.
keep per JoshuaZ - reliable sources met; WP:WEB met --Matilda ^talk 22:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N, is informative and is worthy of notice. Moreover, it is past being a Start or Stub article. It is also mentioned in international news such as the dutch article previously mentioned and in the German Press--Bob (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That article appears to be almost completely a translation of The Industry Standard article. The only addition is that they explain that fancruft ("Fanmaterial" in German) is material that isn't offically part of the fictional universe (there may be a mistranslation here either on my part or on the article in question since that seems to confuse fancruft with fanon or possibly other issues). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being?? Many newspapers/media outlets use text ad verbatim from sources such as AP, AFP and Reuters and lesser ones such as IS. The fact that it is being picked up and reposted lends to the WP:N. --Bob (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it means that it is difficult to count it as a separate independent reliable source from the Industry Standard article. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't think keeping this article alive will hurt Wikipedia, but trying to suppress it certainly will. If WP (-defenders) can't stand some criticism (and by now way I think the site deletionpedia is criticism in itself), then they just don't understand the fact that it is this bottom-top approach which made Wikipedia what it is, and deleting this article without proper reasons turns this approach upside down and sympathy away from wikipedia. The reason why I estimate the notability of the site is because the deletion policy is a major soft spot in WP and many people have strong feelings about it. Therefore this morgue deserves an artivle in WP. - Ironically, this whole discussion gave this article more importance by triggering more news sites to mention deletionpedia and the fuss around it. Trying to suppress opinions in the digital world can sometimes yield the opposite effect... I'm also sure that quite soon similar sites will appear for other languages in WP thus also increasing the notability of it. Matthiku (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not trying to suppress anything. The site itself will go on no matter what we decide here. The question is as to whether the site is notable enough to merit an article about it on Wikipedia. This suppression argument is pure WP:BOLLOCKS. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because...? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's be honest, this article really belongs on Deletionpedia.--Pushsense (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are being honest. Do you have any actual reasons to back up your opinion? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough significant coverage here to establish notability, with more coverage in the last couple of hours here - due to this AFD and here. While not enough on it's own combined with the coverage already in the article I think this more than establishes notability. Davewild (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage of this website has spread rapidly in the last 24 hours and will only continue to do so. T0lk (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may fail WP:WEB but has garnered enough media coverage to make it notable (partially thanks to the irony of this deletion nomination). -Nv8200p talk 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hehe that is ironic. I'd gt a laugh out of that, care to show me a Verifiable source discussing the Article because of this AfD? Infact, show me any more sources than the minimal few already on the page? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that this is an apropo use of WP:IAR. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a free online encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is greatly improved by the fact that the revision history is available and all content contributed to an article is present in some form. It allows future editors to build on the work of previous editors, even when the contributions in past edits were not yet acceptable for front-end content. Furthermore, editors are accountable for the changes they make. This accountability and preservation of content is not present with deleted articles. Deletionpedia could fill this need, or it could become a catalyst for change, but it can't do either without building a strong link with Wikipedia. This article is the first step in that direction. The consensus appears to be that it improves the wiki.--128.6.210.119 (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the snowball has grown large enough to be noteworthy. Ezratrumpet (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but steal their thunder by closing as many AfDs as keep from here on out! J We do not want to risk them having more articles than us, lest they actually become the comprehensive encyclopedia we allegedly aspire to be… --172.129.17.196 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article would not have been considered actionable via WP:AfD if it weren't Wikipedia-related. On the balance of fact available, it was borderline notable before, and the act of nominating it for AfD has taken the "borderline" off the "notable". Like rain on your wedding day. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2008-09-20 20:52Z

Um..... not so much. I don't get it, what makes you (all of you) think anyone here thinks that it should be deleted because it is "Wikipedia related"? I dont see a single delete comment expressing that view, there are a few comments on the irony of the situtaion but nothing more, it seems this article has been turned into a straw man for deletionist bashing. The article was originally nominated for deletion because the total reliable sourceing out there amounted to one article and then another four sentance mention. Articles with more coverage than this are routinely deleted. In fact I think what is hapenning here is the opposite of what you are alleging, it is probably because that it is Wikipedia related that so many 'keep' !votes are coming out, because, as I said before the particular irony of the AfD has every one up in an anti-deletionist blood frenzy. - Icewedge (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you give examples of "Articles with more coverage than this are routinely deleted"? Mdwh (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:WEB requirements of two non-trivial independent sources. There is no requirement for being "major". Mdwh (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Deletionpadia is an excellent repository of pages, many of which lasted for extremely long periods of time, with many, many edits before they were deleted. Also, both the site is self, and other sources that mention it (even if in passing) make it notable enough for inclusion. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's borderline, to be sure, but it's gotten enough mention to be borderline, and yes, quite frankly I think we should strive to err on the side of inclusion when it is material that is critical of Wikipedia. I am confident that the world will find Deletionpedia to be far less useful and interesting than (say) Conservapedia once the novelty of the idea wears off and people actually start reading the "content." We can always revisit the issue in six months or so. Right now, deleting this article smacks of bias. Caesar's wife and so forth. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examination of the sources

Lets go over the sources on this article, (the numbering here referrs to the sources by number as they were on this revision.[23])

A page on the website itself, not only is a SPS but it is an SPS on a Wiki. Entirley unreliable source, invalid for notability.
same as above. Invalid for notability.
Same as above. Invalid for notability.
This article has exactly one sentence about deletionpedia: "Still, even deleted articles survive, on Deletionpedia: 50,000 and counting.", nothing more. A single sentance is not in depth by any possible definition. Invalid for notability.
This article[24] actually does appear to be legit.
A slashdot discussion, web forums are not reliable sources by any definition. Invalid for notability.
This article is actually about the topic... but it is only one paragraph long. One paragraph is not the kind of "in-depth source" referred to at WP:GNG.
This article mentions Wikipedia deletionists but does not mention anything about deletionpedia at all. Invalid for notability.
Same as above; this article mentions Wikipedia deletionists but does not mention anything about deletionpedia. Invalid for notability.

So in summary the combined relevant reliable sourcing of this article is one medium size article and one two small mentions; 4 paragraphs and one sentence in total. Face it folks (and sock puppets, SPA’s, ect.), This does not meet WP:GNG. - Icewedge (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm going to have to disagree with some aspects of your analysis. Note that the Slashdot piece has a few sentences before the forum discussion (I don't think that that is enough to count as an independent source but it is worth noting). In the next case, the article in De Telegraaf, a long paragraph devoted to a specific topic is non-trivial coverage from a reliable source. So we have two reliable independent, non-trivial sources. That meets WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with how Slashdot works? The stories that people comment on are user submitted.
Now about WP:N, it states that "sources [should] address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content", is four sentances an in detail discussion of the subject? - Icewedge (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, which is probably why he noted himself, "I don't think that that is enough to count as an independent source". TheMolecularMan (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but he did present it as if it in some way heped establish notability, which it does not. Oh, and it is possible that you did not fully get the context of my comment, the second part is about the der telegraf piece. - Icewedge (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree that the Slashdot matter is minimally helpful. (We could have a discussion that about whether the editorial selection by slashdot makes the comments selected as the leads somehow more reliable but that's iffy at best). As to the telegraaf piece, the standard needed is non-trivial, which it meets. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 news sources, plus, few more already sourced in the article -- more than enough for inclusion, IMHO. In addition, If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. WP:IAR. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this is interesting. The most vocal people speaking in favor for deletion of the article keep telling that the reason is not that they dislike the subject in question but that they just believe the article fails the guidelines. It seems that a majority of commentors feel otherwise which now causes that the people in favor for deletion go through lengths arguing and explaining why the latter people are wrong and only they are right. Also they choose to diffame the other commentors as sock puppets, SPA etc. For me thats a sure sign that its not about the compliance of the article to the guidelines but about a article which some people want to suppress. While i understand that this is not a majority vote as noted on top, said people should probably accept if a very clear majority don't feel the same way as them instead of keeping arguing and answering to votes in favor to keep the article and so on. This certainly looks like some people fighting a holy war and not just discussing if the article mets the guidelines. My 2ct. -- Kju (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (not a sock puppet or spa)[reply]

I couldn't care less about Wikipedia... see my poor edit history and lack of interest for huge periods of time... and I simply don't believe that 1 useable source of notability is grounds for inclusion. More importantly, going around assuming other people's position just because they put forward stronger arguments instead of repeating "It has serious reliable sources" over and over and over and over again, could be considered somewaht rude. No one has made claims to not liking it, and i'm personally somewhat offended by the accusation that I care about the content of the article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

' I couldn't care less about Wikipedia... '... ' offended by the accusation that I care about the content of the article '

Just out of curiosity, if you don't care about Wikipedia, nor about this specific article, why you bother writing here? I write here because I do care about Wikipedia. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a little off topic... my point was that I have no reason to take the article personally and I made my Delete Comments based upon the lack of sources and not the content of the article. As did all the other people who have so far argued for deletion, and been perfectly civil and in good faith while those considering keeping it are reduced to making accusations of bad faith with absolutely no evidence, every other comment. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all need to keep generalisations out of it. Not all delete "voters" are doing it for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons nor are all keep voters doing it by making accusations of bad faith. Generalisations don't help the article, this discussion, or wikipedia. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm in favor of keeping this article and frankly I don't see any evidence to back up the claims that people who want this deleted are at all calling for deletion out of some dislike for deletionpedia or what it stands for. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's another source which is now active: in German. It discusses briefly Deletionpedia and mentions a few additional examples of articles which were deleted and migrated over. It also connects Deletionpedia to other related issues such as Wikiscanner although what connection they are trying to make is not clear to me. Possibly someone with better language skills can figure that out. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a short introduction of Deletionpedia the article talks about the repeated problems with manipulation of wikipedia articles, names manipulated articles like one about the CEO of a swiss bank which was cleaned up from a bank's IP and finally mentions wikiscanner. -- 80.139.2.106 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaMB

This month-old article on an up-coming film has had requests for reliable references to establish notability since its creation (though tags are repeatedly removed). The only sources for the article are press releases from the production company and a blog. Recommend deletion for lack of Reliable sources for a WP:NPOV, WP:V article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, after a quick google search it appears to have a ANN page with a couple realted articles citing that it's real and that's going to be broadcast in multiple countries on a major television channel. I don't see why it wouldn't be notable.- Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They all appeared to be press releases written by the production company to me. Did you find something independent? DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm... I think this is independent. The rest do seem to be press releases. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability isn't an issue here, since anime with broad international releases are generally deemed inclusion-worthy. The problem is that the writing is awful, and that there isn't much to say about it yet. It can at least support a decent stub until release though. --erachima talk 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. A few press releases do not make this a notable future film. No objection to creation if/when its actually released next year. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF has a good idea that "information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material". I don't think there's an article on the subject but there is on the production company Animax. Perhaps a smerge there would be appropriate with a break-out article if it ever gets independent sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the page would be non-conducive to presentation of the material, and the page shows clear potential for expansion. --erachima talk 03:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a film based on a manga or anime, then I'd agree a merge would be best. But merging to the production company doesn't seem like a good fit, as we wouldn't normally include "upcoming films" in such articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view still is that this article does not have the necessary sources for a NPOV article and should be removed. However, a slight merge of simply the fact that the film is in production could be stated on the Animax article and this article could be redirected there awaiting better references. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animax as the more notable entity (for now) but, get someone to cleanup the Animax reference section (too much primary source and press release stuff there as well from what I can tell) Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does fail WP:NFF, which exists precisely for this reason. We know it will be released, but we don't know for certain when, and there isn't much to say yet that isn't speculative. Maybe someone could userfy it until some sources appear. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I made this page,and provide the References and also I,take the info from Sony Pictures Entertainment office so if any problem with this page please write in my talk page I will provide the solution--Sumit (talk) • contribs) 17:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: you take the info from Sony. That is the problem. We need a balanced and neutral point-of-view article and independent sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason why independant sources are required for articles is so the information will be presented with a neutral point of view, yeah, but as of now the only info in the article is facts about its production. There's nothing to be non-neutral or opinionated on. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~,There is a lot of info about this movie can be find in ANN.I not take the info from Sony I justify the info from Sony and also this movie is also released in Feb in 2009 as now people want info about this movie and it is main aim of Wikipedia "to provide free knowledge to the people" . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumit sony145 (talk • contribs)
- - Now the info in LaMB does not create any non-neutral points as Norse Am Legend said and also it is the development and productions info with is given in any other movie Wikipedia and There's nothing to be non-neutral or opinionated in it.--Sumit(talk) 03:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All info about.com

Another article about a website, with no assertion of notability. Wongm (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:WEB. TheMolecularMan (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:WEB, non-notable. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 05:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. JuJube (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another ad farm. Equendil Talk 09:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Defenders Football Club

an article about a group or club that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. 2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. League appears to be non-notable; none of the players appear to be notable, and calling this a "semi-pro" team might be stretching it. Team hasn't even begun play yet and these (very) minor leagues often fold. TheMolecularMan (talk) 03:49, 18 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) 00:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Teams that haven't played any games yet would have to be very special in some other way to be notable.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I have removed the term "semi-pro" from the article because the players do not receive a salary for their play, they do so to raise monies for charities. The National Public Safety Football League [25] has been around for over ten years and adds new teams almost every year. There are now 22 teams in the league from Los Angeles to New York and everywhere in between. Seeing as the league of a non-profit, there is no business pressure to gain revenue or fold if revenues are not there. Those 22 teams represent nearly 1,000 police officers and firefighters that in addition to risking their lives everyday to protect their communities, they are being pro-active by one again risking injury to raise money for various charities, so I find the reference to the league being "non-notable" very subjective on that person's part. There is signifgant coverage of the league to include television coverages for some games, a league webite, and no original research is required to verify the league, which is wikipedia's criteria for notable.

As for the team, they are not simply a new team, but an absorbsion of a former team that has been playing since 1994 along with new talent. The first game is in three weeks, and if you happen to live in the Dallas area, or know anything about our strong football tradition, I would invite you to stop by and see for yourself the complexity of the team and likelihood to succeed. Would you delete an expansion NFL team because they hadn't played yet? I didn't create the name of the page, I simply entered the content, so someone else out there must have heard about the team as well. And no, the players on the teams are not noted for their football skills. Maybe half have even played college football, much less professional. However, these players are noted for their off-field achievements and actions. A member of the Philadelphia team gave his life this week trying to protect his city. How many "notable" players from other leagues would do that? Yes, it's a small league, but what's the harm of showing these guys a little bit of support and recognition by keeping this page intact? And yes, I am new to writing wiki pages, so please bear with me if I made a format error. Dsboice (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)--Dsboice (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca DeLorenzo

She was "Director of Operations" so she didn't play. There's no evidence her work there was notable, and this is scarcely above a speedy. One of a series of highly questionable contributions from this editor. Team is notable, neither the person nor her college lacrosse career appear notable. TravellingCari 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:BIO. No assertion of notability. TheMolecularMan (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Equendil Talk 09:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, what about these credentials, Francesca DeLorenzo joined The Pride this season after pursuing a career in real estate. She was previously working with The Marketing Directors Inc., a prominent real estate company in Manhattan. She handled sales for high end communities, including Trump Plaza in Westchester, NY and The Solaria Condominium in Riverdale, NY. She has a high level of experience in the sales and marketing field as well as business management. DeLorenzo graduated from Marist College in 2005 with a degree in Finance and Marketing and a minor in Spanish language. At Marist, she was a three-year starter for the Marist College Women’s Lacrosse team. She currently ranks as one of the all-time leaders for games played (59), ground balls (75), and draw controls, having played every field position for the team except goalie. In her career she amassed 23 career goals and 25 career points. Francesca was also a three-time Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference All-Academic Team selection. Her previous experience with the Pride was as a front office and game operations intern in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDelo93 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it unnecessary to use the statement "a series of highly questionable contributions from this editor." I take that as an insult and would like you to name what contributions of mine have been "Highly Questionable." I do not appreciate you demeaning me for attempting to contribute to the Wikipedia society.

I agree, maybe "questionable notability" would be accurate but "highly questionable contributions" suggests it was not in good faith (Assume good faith is a Wikipedia guideline). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one where you over-wrote an existing article with information on someone of questionable notability to add him as anotable alum? or this? Perhaps this one wherein you tried to AfD a category I created as a result of this discussion? Maybe I was a little harsh, but you haven't indicated that I was wrong. TravellingCari 02:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage other than on the team's own website, which is not independent of the subject. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After discussing with Jerry. This has been up for long enough, and there's very little support for keeping the article. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krav Maga Worldwide

POV, Advertising, Censorship, Conflict of Interest, Threats. Major contributor is subject of article; Major contributor removes cited information conflicting with his/her point of view with no justification. Adbaculum (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A minor point. Yes, the author is tied up in this article. However, it has several references, which all check out, and the material you are trying to repeatedly add is both completely unreferenced, violates BLP, and are based on a very un-NPOV way of looking at the material -- and you are involved with this too. AfD is not where you go to clean up articles. It needs cleanup, not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logical Premise (talk • contribs) 02:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you still have those references handy, could you fill in some of the details on them in the article--title, author(s), page number(s) (for print references) or a link (for online references)? As it is, just the periodical title and month isn't really a full citation--the complete information would make it easier for other people who wanted to verify the references. Chuck (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If having refernces to USPTO trademark application numbers were the point of dispute I do not think outright deleting the section in dispute would be appropriate (I am uncertain how to properly cite a US trademark application). I am not sure clean-up is possible considering the obvious hostility of the author/subject of this article and the nature of it which is heavily nn. Also note the author's efforts to manipulate the Krav Maga topic to eliminate references to competing organizations and add his/her own. Also note the use of promotional outside links against Wikipedia standard of using links. It is my belief Author is using Wikipedia as a marketing channel which is not part of it's intended function. Adbaculum (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:24, 9 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, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivial mentions, COI fluff. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Little or no context for the notability or significance of the subject. COI and reads like an advertisement. Wikipedia is not your web host. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:35, 13 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, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete I made a pass at resolving the COI and advert issues, but unless the references are cleaned up and clarified so they can be checked, there's not much more to do with it. The only one I can find, which is here [26] does not mention the company at all, and indeed predates its claimed founding by a year. gnfnrf (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current, edited version of the article makes the remarkable claim that the US military contracts out the training of special forces in martial arts to this business. If true, this would make a fairly convincing case for notability. But that's the sort of double-take claim that needs more specific pinpoint references than what's given. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Pardon my ignorance at procedure here at Wiki. Heres a link to a scanned recent letter from the Department of the Air force. http://focusselfdefense.com/sites/default/files/images/AFOSI-AST%20Letter%20of%20Commendation%20(small).jpg We have many such letters of appreciation please let me know if I can supply you with any more information. I won’t be adding anymore content to the page and I have only attempted to remove what we consider vandalism by rival factions. This information might also be of note http://www.cafi.us/post.htm regarding our work with law enforcement. The California Association of Force Instructors announced its using KMW to teach is 80hr certified Defensive Tactics course. Thank you for your efforts they are appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmwwinc (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To best support the inclusion of the article, it should have multiple sources to non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. In order to verify that the coverage is non-trivial, your references should be to the specific claims that the source supports, and should be detailed enough that someone else can use the information to look up the source. Currently, the article has a number of sources lumped at the end, but it isn't clear what you think those sources say, and the references to them are too vague to easily check. Replacing those sources with clearly defined ones (including dates and page numbers in some standard style) would be a good start. See WP:References for good starting guidelines. gnfnrf (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thank you for your comments and suggestions. However as an employee of KMW I really did not wish to write or edit this article any further based on some of the above comments stating I was biased. I think it would be best that a non partial individual utilize the existing material in order to sustain credibility to the content. Am I incorrect in assuming this wouldn’t be the best course of action? KMWWinc (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is very true. In general, people with a vested interest in the article subject should not edit that article, per WP:COI. However, what I am asking is not to change the content of the article, but to clarify the references. If you aren't comfortable editing the article, then just specifying the reference material in more detail on the talk page might help. gnfnrf (talk) 16:22, 19 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, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Krav Maga while we are at it. Non-notable spam articles without reliable 3rd party sourcing which cover the subject in a significant manner. It isn't about the number of references but, about the quality and both articles fail on that. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Stead

Non-notable person, a lot of the article is written as if written by the subject or someone close to the subject. No real claims of notability, no reliable sources, nothing at Google news. His two books are listed at over 200,000 and over 350,000 most purchased at amazon.co.uk. Corvus cornix_talk 03:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly had a sizable following in his radio days and he's pretty well-known in the South Wales region as a journalist these days. His books sold far better in the UK than in the US and are widely available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.226.3 (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I specifically looked for the sales figures at amazon.co.uk because he's British and so are the subjects of his books. Please also provide reliable sources for his notability. Corvus cornix_talk 03:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHis book on Brian O'Driscoll was in the top 10 best-selling rugby union books for some time earlier this year, and remains the only biography of him that has been written. His first book received national press attention, partly because it was released so close to Dettori's Derby win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.226.3 (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC) — 87.112.226.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Both those are if anything arguments for the notability of the books (which are themselves pretty thin arguments - top 10 rugby union book for some time is hardly a great advert for wide notability). What's notable about the man himself though? I don't see much. MadScot666 (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells like autobio and no independent references are offered. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after doing various searches I have to conclude that he doesn't meet the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 22:54, 17 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, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, very likely conflict of interest. Equendil Talk 09:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable (yet). Try again when he's got some secondary source coverage. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can tell, all the info on his page is true and accurate- he remains active and is in the public eye to a resonable extent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.2.251 (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The above is the only contribution from that IP address, provides no evidence for its statements, and fails to address the main verifiable notability issue. Someone more cynical than me might have certain suspicions. TrulyBlue (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Nyce

Claim of notability unverified by a reliable source. Article mostly analysis and observations of primary sources. Suspected original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does not meet WP:PORNBIO by any stretch. --2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 02:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete because having heard of her just isn't a good enough reason for keeping and I don't have access to a computer where I can find reliable sources (without getting fired) I have to judge on article content and GNews searches both of which fail. Although she gets 600,000+ hits in a Gsearch I'm guessing too many of them will be to picture galleries and the like. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to the gnews lack, 0 article returns for both xbiz and avn. Lack of independent coverage, and nothing in the article is indicative of meeting WP:PORNBIO.Horrorshowj (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This has been here more than long enough. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers (non-profit organization)

Doesn't meet WP:N, WP:ORG, and google yields little promise. User:L^BPub 15:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly, Frontiers is a notable international organization.--Alfredie (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you back that up at all? Leonard^(Bloom) 04:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any non-religious references to the organization through google. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite The first sentence of this article may be copyvio from this image and other places. However, they do have some news mentions, such as a January 30, 1995 article in The Vancouver Sun and another in a March 9, 1996 article in the Calgary Herald. There appears to be controversy surrounding the group, as mentioned in an article in The WSJ. They appear to be just across the threshold of WP:ORG; "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization", which can be verified in at least the above articles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to demonstrate notablity. We66er (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I could not find any sources through google, though admittedly the organisation's name is difficult to isolate and google certainly does not have everything but there are no Reliable sources given in the article either. I see that Mendaliv, above, has found some "mentions" but just because organisations international in scale are usually notable does not mean that they are. In the end, we still need independent sources to meet the core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. If reliable sources really can be added, my suggestion would be keep and clean-up for NPOV. Otherwise, delete and create upon discovery of adequate reliable, independent sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Djalma Bom. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idalina mantovani

Fails WP:BIO. Google turns up almost nothing and she is not mentioned in the sources cited in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to Djalma Bom, Google searches indicate she isn't notable. RMHED (talk) 00:01, 18 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, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Equendil Talk 09:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolgot

The article about this supposed city does not have a strong, solid background. There are absolutely no statistics and demographics to speak of, nor anything indicating a strong presence in the realm of geography. As it is, the article is of very poor quality right now, and is thus worthy for deletion. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 15:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Official website is under construction; here, i think. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 15:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reply An official website for a city would most likely have the ".go.kr" suffix. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 15:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —- -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 15:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason why this article shouldn't be kept; this may be a case of WP:POINT,

(Basically to make a short story shorter; the user had this page listed at User:LUUSAP/Wolgot, i turned it into a wikipedia article. The user responded with this Edit. I informed the user here about GFDL. The user has prodded the article (twice) before listing it here for AFD). - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found mentionings of Wolgot here & Here - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 16:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also found mentions of a "Wolgot-myon" and a "Wolgot-dong" through searches of "Wolgot". Are these the city in construction where talking about or different places alltogether? - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't know if the AFD nominee can vote as well, but if we can, then I'm voting. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 03:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination counts as a "vote" already, but really it's WP:NOTAVOTE it's a discussion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm a bit concerned the location found on the internet for Wolgot appears to be fields and trees. Doesn't seem to be much of a city there: http://www.maplandia.com/korea-south/kyonggi-do/wolgot/ Now of course, high altitude imagery may have been done many years ago, but then again, I'd like to be sure there's an actual city being built there, so reliable sources are needed. Equendil Talk 09:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, it seems sort of notable, but I am not sure if it falls foul of wp:crystal ball --UltraMagnus (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Whatever the history of pointiness, Googling the term brings up only 5000 hits, googling "Wolgot Korea" limits it down to 1500. None of the ones I checked looked like reliable sources. So unless actual reliable sources can be found, I don't see much value in the article. Please note that the current quality of the article is quite irrelevant, what is important is the potential quality that can be achieved with available sources. If someone digs out reliable sources, I'm quite willing to change my vote. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
move to userspace, until some reliable source identifies its existence and location. There is confusion as to precisly the location of the city, or even which provience its in. Google news lists potential matches as: Wolgot-myon, Kimpo-kun, Kyonggi Province; Wolgot-myeon, Yonggang-ri; Wolgot-Myeon Gyeonggi-Do; Wolgot-myun Gimpo-shi Gyunggi-do. Its supposibly near Siheung in Gyeonggi, and there is reports of construction in Yonggang [27]. --Salix alba (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too many WP:V issues, and copying-and-pasting an article from someone's sandbox into an article without crediting them as the author violates the GFDL. Mr.Z-man 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all towns/cities are inherently notable a long as they can be proved to exist and I have found several mentions of it.[28][29] - Icewedge (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem, that we don't even known where it is. The article says its being built near Siheung (google map) south of Seoul, yet the second ref, puts it somewhere to the north east of Seoul. The first ref does not have enough detail to locate it. --Salix alba (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have tried to find citations for a undeniable location for this place. It seems to be non-notable, if it is to exist at all doktorb _words^deeds 22:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ezatullah (Sorubi, Nangarhar, 2001)

Contested PROD. There are simply not enough sources to write a full, neutral biography of this individual. I found two mentions that, while verifying the information in the article, are no more than trivial:

A one sentence mention in a New York times article, which, rephrased, is basically the entirety of the article.
Six years later, a mention in three paragraphs of a larger article with some brief quotes

These are trivial mentions and, as such, do not meet WP:N's requirement of a subject's non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. All we can say about him is mentioning two posts that he's held and perhaps his opinion as presented by the Wall Street Journal. That is not appropriate for a biography of a living person. It may be argued that he is automatically notable as a district governor (is that sub-national?) per WP:POLITICIAN, in which case the information here should be merged into another more detailed article. It cannot stand alone as an article. Cheers, CP 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- no offense, but I think there is a difference between notability and notoriety. Nominator seems to be suggesting that the holder an important political position has to be famous (ie notorious) in order to merit coverage here. I suggest being a leader of a provisional government makes an individual notable. Nominator asks:
It may be argued that he is automatically notable as a district governor (is that sub-national?) per WP:POLITICIAN

Well , the Eastern Shura, of which Ezatullah was a leader, was at least briefly independent. The anti-Taliban leaders who formed the Eastern Shura could have joined with the Northern Alliance. They chose not to, giving them an independent voice at the Bonn Conference that chose Hamid Karzai as leader of the Afghan Transitional Authority. That would make him a leader at the National level -- clearly qualifying for inclusion under WP:POLITICIAN.

Comment -- Ezatullah is a very common name in Afghanistan. Our disambiguation page, Ezatullah, currently list half a dozen individuals named Ezatullah. The standards for disambiguation pages are that they are not supposed to contain references. These individuals are all easily confused, if we don't have articles about each of them, with references that allow us to distinguish between them. Geo Swan (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator may have confused the Ezatullah from Nangarhar with the Ezatullah appointed to a position in Sangin -- hundreds of miles away. They might be the same guy -- but that would be unsupported speculation. We have zero indication that they are the same individual, except that they share a very common name. Deletion of brief, neutral, factual articles like this one, are a disservice to the wikipedia project, because they guarantee later confusion. When additional notable references to an Ezatullah in Afghanistan come to light it guarantees that whoever wants to include that information has to repeat the same hours of research that have already been performed, to figure out which Ezatullah those references refer to. Geo Swan (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Please do not put words into my mouth; I never suggested that anyone has to be famous in order to merit coverage. Accusing me of such shallow and trite thinking is an uncalled for insult and distracts from the issues at hand. In quoting me, my suggestion that "in which case the information here should be merged into another more detailed article. It cannot stand alone as an article" was left out, thus giving more credence to the above interpretation what I may be "suggesting". Taken together, I am suggesting that WP:POLITICIAN as a policy does not automatically override the policy guidelines at WP:N, it merely suggests that the material should be on Wikipedia in some fashion. There are many subjects on Wikipedia that are notable, but do not have their own article; for a long time The Angry Video Game Nerd was deemed notable enough only to have a section about him in ScrewAttack. Later, when more sources came out, he was given his own article. You have suggested that he is notable per WP:POLITICIAN, fine. But why not merge this into some other article, delete this redirect as it is a highly unlikely search term and create a link to the section from the Ezatullah page. If all that were to be agreed upon, then I would obviously withdraw the nom. At the moment, however, I feel that it is appropriate to boldy draw some attention to this issue by suggesting that this individual article be deleted. There is simply no evidence of enough sources to support a full, neutral article here. I also view the "is it the same guy" question as an irrelevant distraction but, if anyone disagrees, they may view my response to this on my talk page, as I see no reason to further discussion on that subject here. Cheers, CP 05:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to subsection? -- Nominator asks why not merge this material into another article, and change the disambiguation page (Ezatullah), to point to the subsection heading of the target of the merge where this material had been shoehorned. Why not? Because redirection to subsection heading is deeply broken. Geo Swan (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I think systemic bias may be an issue here; see WP:BIAS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ~~this google search gives no results. --Soman (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)~~ Seems i misspelled, [30] is probably more correct. --Soman (talk) 10:53, 14 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, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably notable, given the leadership role specified by the NYT. (I don't see the POV problem--whatever one thinks of his activities, the NYT is a reliable source for his role.) We should be able to write a better article except for cultural bias in searching and the name problem. Although it might seem that a combination article would do, it is probably simpler and less confusing to give each person their own main article.DGG (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WorldExtend

Borderline advertising for (once open source, now commercial) software, with dubious notability. 9Nak (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is very "spamming" and turns up one passing mention on Google News. Because of this, I believe that the article fails company notability guidelines. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 10:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam advertising, non-notable. The Man in the Rock (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — the menu consists of "Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans, Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam." MuZemike (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Equendil Talk 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verschoyle Patent Mandrel

The one reference cited is a family history book, with "Verschuijl and Verschoyle Family" in the title, and published by "Verschoyle Mason Publications". The external link is practically a carbon copy of the article, which would seem to show that either the article is a copyvio, or that the external link is copying the article. Google search turns up 31 hits for "Verschoyle Patent Mandrel" -wikipedia, however all hits are mirroring the wikipedia article (except one which is the external link, mentioned). GoogleBookSearch gives no hits for "Verschoyle Patent Mandrel". The article admits "The machine was marketed in 1918 but was never a financial success"... Also, note the only real editor to the article is LukeL (talk · contribs) aka 82.30.37.26 (talk · contribs) who stated "He is my cousin" in reference to the article, and gives his name as "Luke Verschoyle" [31].

No third party, reliable sources. Conflict of interest. No hits turn up in google except one. Possible copyvio. No hits turn up in Google book search, showing the subject has not been written about in countless published books scanned there. Celtus (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest notability, I did find the book referenced (here) but its self-published so probably doesn't count as a reliable source. The article fails general notability guidelines. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 10:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete "never a commercial success" An invention that gets patented but not written about or significant otherwise is not notable.DGG (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saddletowne (C-Train)

Per WP:CRYSTAL we should not yet be making an article on a train station scheduled for 2011. Calgary Transit and C-Train are the appropriate places to discuss work-in-progress and plans for the system. The only sources cited so far are from the city government. When the station is complete, or very close to complete, we can make an article. I could see a justification for this article, if there was a huge controversy or something causing lots of coverage of the specific station. But, I'm not aware of it. It's just one of around half a dozen LRT stations in the works in Calgary. Rob (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with C-Train for now. It's not WP:CRYSTAL if it's been announced by an official body - i.e. the City of Calgary - however it's still premature as construction has not yet even begun. 23skidoo (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The C-Train article already mentions the extension. PK T 18:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete when construction starts, an article will be justified. There will then undoubtedly be suitable newspaper sources. Only a weak delete, since it is scheduled for 2008, but that does not necessarily mean it will actually start in 08. DGG (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Academic Decathlon. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alli Blonski

Subject does not meet notability guidelines and her mention in the USAD should suffice Million_Moments (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Academic Decathlon per WP:BLP1E. no need for formal deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would argue it is very unlikely anyone would look up Alli Blonski but a redirect is an acceptable alternative. Million_Moments (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete name is mentioned in coverage of the event, but lack of significant/biographical coverage. Redirect is not necessary as it is unlikely that people would expect an article, and there is only one link to the article from the main namespace. Content already in United States Academic Decathlon article is enough. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the major contributor to United States Academic Decathlon, I'd say this is a rather unnecessary article (I didn't create it). Her notability will disappear when/if someone outscores her, in which case the article will have to be deleted anyway. - Yohhans^talk 00:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I believe a redirect is appropriate even with the low likelihood that someone would look her up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 14:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henchman 800

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series, so it doesn't require an article. TTN (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator, there is no notability established. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, generic enemy with a generic description and generic sub-types. Yawn. Nifboy (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete common enemy in the game without significant coverage in reliable third party sources, thus failing our WP:V policy (if not just our WP:N guideline). Randomran (talk) 17:16, 17 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, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial-tastic treatment of generic enemies, no sign of passing WP:N in regards to significant coverage. Someone another 01:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Game-guide material (WP:NOT#GUIDE), the list is trivial, no evidence of notability (WP:N). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Calibration. Content, what little there is, can be merged at editorial discretion to Calibration. I'm inlcined to delete this article as it manages to get "zeroing" wrong and relate it to scales without using the word 'tare', even as a contrast. However, consensus is to redirect. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroing

This neologism doesn't balance when it comes to notability. Anyone care to "weigh in" on this? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "zeroing" can apply to almost any measurement device, not just a balance. It's basically calibration to the null reading. As it stands I think the article is too focused on one case of this. However it seems a bit definition-y. Couldn't the one sentence the article consists of go into the scale article? MadScot (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best a dictionary definition, so fails WP:NOT. Equendil Talk 09:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Calibration. Not enough topic for more than a dicdef; Calibration article needs expansion anyway; and a redirect would be useful because many instruments have only this single calibration point. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Calibration, it can be mentioned in that article. As a separate article it is unlikely to become more than a dictionary definition. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Zapato

AfDs for this article:

As this article is written, the subject appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete some minor interviews and mentions, but nothing to established notablity to wiki standards. We66er (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How many times does this need to be relisted, if no one says anything in favor of keeping it, and there are a few good reasons to delete it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nominator that there does not seem to be enough reliable sourcing to pass WP:BIO. The article seems to serve mainly as a promotional vehicle for the subject's book and website. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough for keeping. Punkmorten (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:40, 1 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto

This huge list has no clear inclusion guidelines and scant few sources. Is it supposed to be a list of the few building that have survived from the pioneer days, or is it a list of all vaguely "old" buildings in the city of Toronto? It really needs to be deleted and not restarted until the inclusion guidelines have been set (and perhaps a new title) and some souces found.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove all buildings under one century old and/or remove every building that does not have a heritage designation. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Re: your first idea, why 100 years? Re: your second, in that case rename to "Listed heritage buildings in Toronto" (or similar) or better yet turn it into a cat.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would comment on my own comment: It would be better to include only heritage-designated buildings, regardless of age, but preferably if they are at least a century old, since it would help shorten the list and would make a good cutoff point. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. There's a building from 1948 in that list. There are people still not yet retired older than buildings on this "list of old buildings". I shudder to think what a "List of Old Buildings in London" (England, not Ontario) would look like. Maybe make it a list of notable buildings in Toronto, and gut the list. But as it stands its hideous. MadScot (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem: there is already something like that. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons given, plus an AFD right off the bat seems inappropriate with no prior effort to clean it up by the nominating editor, no tagging in an effort to have it cleaned up, and no comments on its talk page by the nom since April. I'll also add that the Toronto landmark template is A: a template, not an article, and B: rather different from the suggested heritage list. I believe that after this AFD is resolved it should pared down to include only heritage buildings and the rest either tossed or merged with more appropriate articles. Westrim (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuild as "pre-Confederation ..." 70.51.8.158 (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I read the nomination and the Good Grief comment I had not looked at the article and expected something hideous. That is not the case. The nominator did not really invoke any WP guideline or policy violation as reason for deletion, so why would we delete it? I agree the article needs a solid lead-in to set inclusion criteria and better in-line (not table-cell) source citations. Indeed the title could be improved to something like this (just an example of a better title in this context) List of pre-20th century buildings and structures in Toronto. A list title can indeed clarify inclusion criteria. IMHO this is exactly the type of navigational list that makes WP a comprehensive and easy-to-use encyclopedic research tool. This one just needs to be cleaned up style wise.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim the newer buildings. Talk:List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto) has a discussion on the desired contents of the page from last year. The suggestion of "A comprehensive list of everything surviving from prior to Confederation should be possible, and after 1867 the list could only be those buildings that are prominent enough to have their own Wikipedia articles" makes sense to me. I was curious to see how the list would change and evolve, but I agree it is time to set some guidelines and enforce them. It seems excessive to delete the page and start over when the solution is simply to lop off some of the newer tables. Hilmar (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. I agree that better inclusion criteria are needed for the article but that can be cleaned up with an appropriate introduction and trimming. Perhaps the 100 oldest buildings or pre-Confederation buildings; whatever can be hammered out on the article's discussion page. The idea and start of the article themselves are solid. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. This is an important list. Much is notable architecture in terms of British North America; some is important in terms of world architecture. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of software moguls

If this deemed a necessary or useful description, then a category could be created. At the moment, this is unsourced original reasearch. PhilKnight (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 19:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a holdover from the early days of Wikipedia (2004), when phrases like "software moguls" seemed encyclopedic. I think the list is superseded by List of the 100 wealthiest people and a redirect there would be OK. Mandsford (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I think a redirect there would be ok. PhilKnight (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Due to the fact that "software mogul" is an ambiguous designation, any inclusion criteria for this list would necessarily be subjective, arbitrary, or both. I see no need to redirect, as the article has few incoming links and the title does not seem to be an especially likely search term. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mandsford, above. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, it doesn't cost anything extra to have a redirect and if it helps one person find what they are looking for it will pay benefits. Jeepday (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Question Why redirect to the List of the 100 wealthiest people? I bet not even 10% of that list have derived their wealth from software, or even computing in general. If I put in "software mogul" as a search term, "Warren Buffett" is hardly the result I'm looking for ....MadScot (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I agree with MadScot here, why redirect to the List of the 100 wealthiest people? The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon. The fact that Linus Torvalds and Steve Balmer are both "moguls" in this list proves how worthless the list is. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List offers nothing more a category would Equendil Talk 09:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; unless there is a better list of those people involved in software who are rich, famous, powerful, or influential. Yartett (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced original research, scope is far too vague to make a coherent list. Hut 8.5 12:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TravellingCari 02:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoodio

I am having little luck confirming notability of this. The article does not pass WP:RS or WP:V, and it may fall into WP:NEO realm, too. Can anyone confirm its notability? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you follow the external link for the lyrics, the web poage also states: a game called “Zudie-O” in Step It Down, their book on African American games, plays, songs, and stories from the Georgia Sea Isles (The University of Georgia Press, 1972, pages 137-138). If, as is asserted, it's the same game, that's one source from a University Publisher, which should meet the RS level. Now, is there a second source out there? If so, and the possible versions of the game are discussed, maybe its notable enough. MadScot (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While [youtube] isn't usually a reference, a small child performing 'a song she learned in school' would have to be a component of an impressive hoax. I'd say it's real. Now, notable enough???MadScot (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC) PS also found numerous blogs and similar referring to this song, not RS of course. May also be known as 'Zodiac'[reply]

I found the text of the book you cited online here: [32]. But beyond one-and-a-half pages in that book, I am not able to locate any confirmation that such a song/game exists, let alone enjoys urban popularity. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The university press book including it is enough. The book is actually a republication of a 1972 Harper book. Republication by such a press is a good indication of reliability. The book is widely known, being held in over 1000 libraries according to WorldCat. . The authors, Bessie Jones is a well known traditional singer, and & Bess Lomax Hawes is a well-known folklore researcher. Such traditional games are of course hard to source, but I'd consider this authoritative. DGG (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DGG makes a strong case that the one ref is good enough. More would be nice, but this will do. I now vote. MadScot (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DMS4

This is a non-notable piece of hardware with no links or sources except the manufacturer, and few edits except for vandalism patrol. Miami33139 (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, no verifiability, no notability. The Man in the Rock (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should have been speedied. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see an encyclopedic article being built on an entirely obscure bit of hardware. Equendil Talk 09:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — No content. Iffy on A1, though. It could also have been prodded. MuZemike (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual modchips are not notable. --SJK (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birgoslaw Zniemeszczesky

I've had no luck trying to locate independent confirmation of this subject's notability -- though maybe I am looking in the wrong places? As it stands at the point of nomination, the article fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This smells hoaxy. No Polish name would end in -sky (-ski is the Polish spelling) and a Google search [33] confirms my impression that Birgoslaw is not a real first name. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No google hits or sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Coleman Memorial Square

Article was prodded, but later removed. For a local plaza to be notable there would have to be a nice amount of reliable sources on it. The first source is more about Howard Beach rather than the Square. The second one's just a photo gallery. Ergo, no notability. Wizardman 16:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, but a lost case, see above. Also, this violates these rules: notability, reliable sources, notability of a plaza is not inherited from a neighborhood. This is a tiny space on a tiny island. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The square seems non notable in my search. If there is enough material about the actual memorial, it might make an article on its own. --Stormbay (talk) 21:27, 17 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) 00:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought that the article, with picture, would be more convincing to keep. The picture just looks like a street. Miami33139 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Handsome Devil

AfDs for this article:

The band's only apparent item of note up until recently was the inclusion of a track in Guitar Hero II. A song has been included in List of songs in Rock Band 2. Recent edits have been attempting to wikilink to the band's article, leading to a number of articles that incorrectly point towards Guitar Hero (as per the original redirect). If not deletion, the article is in need dire need of cleanup/creation in order to avoid confusion caused by linking a band name to a video game article they have no connection to save for a single song. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: - Looking at the article's history, attempts were made to flesh out the article here, which were then rejected and removed in one fell swoop here. I would be in support of keeping the article if it's allowed to be reverted to a state similiar to the first link. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: - WP:Music #10 was originally used to apply to this band. However, with the inclusion in a second work of note (Rock Band 2), the question becomes which one would the redirect apply to? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article "deleted" on August 10, 2007 with a redirect to List of songs in Guitar Hero II left behind. TRTX seems to be disagreeing with that deletion? If so, it would seem that deletion review is more appropriate, or a redirect deletion discussion, not restoring the original article against the previous deletion discussion, then renominating it for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - As stated above, the use of WP: Music referenced in the original AfD no longer applies. I have restored the article to a previous state that attempted to fulfil the request to build a more substantial article as a temporary place holder so that both articles referencing the band actually point to the band (rather than RB2 unexplicably linking to GHII). It is inaccurate to present That Handsome Devil as relevent only due to inclusion in GHII when we now have a second noteable item which also references it. I support deletion if it is decided that the band is not noteable enough to support a full article. But I do not support the inaccurate redirect. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the band is still unnotable and the article is no different from it was when it was deleting via redirect last time. Due to the issue of link conflicts, go with full deletion rather than redirect. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:11, 14 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) 00:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I was prepared to endorse deletion, but I just can't shake feeling that it's inappropriate to delete the article because we don't know what to do with it. The group's original claim to notability - having a song available on a notable game as a bonus track - was weak. It now has a stronger claim - yet another song will be featured in a different notable game. As a result of this increased notability, the article now should be deleted? The guidelines are to be read with common sense, and to me the easiest way to avoid a paradoxical result is to keep the version mentioned by the nom. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. agreed that the whole delete/redirect/unredirect/delete thing is ass-backwards, but looking at this AfD in isolation still points to the band being not-notable enough for an article. We delete article by bands with greater success this early in there careers until they have enough reliable sources and pass WP:MUSIC. Some of the older Singstar games were mostly songs by unknown musicians that have never gone on to achieve enough success to have an article - inclusion in a game is very little claim to notability, and nor is being on a compilation. I say delete now, and allow recreation if/when the first album gets enough press, or wait for the 2nd album.Yobmod (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Ron's sources are good enough for me. I might as well withdraw, or this'll keep getting relisted until the end of time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainer (DVD)

Unsourced DVD package. No reliable sources found, just PR sources from Walmart regarding the DVD's release and trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found mentions in the Los Angeles Times (fee-based access required) [34], the Kansas City Star (also fee-based) [35] and mention in Billboard. [36]. The article needs better sourcing, but notability is confirmable. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:54, 17 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) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus (politics)

Unnotable conspiracy from Danny Casolaro. Lacking sources since January 2007. We66er (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely lacking in any serious encyclopedic value. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs or sources.(69.231.39.97 (talk) 19:58, 17 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) 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't remember, but wasn't there a famous political cartoon depicting a certain government as an octopus? I want to vote a redirect to that cartoonist, but since the details escape me, I'm voting Delete for now. JuJube (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete existing article. That was Thomas Nast's carton of William M. Tweed, the 19th century Tammany boss of NYC. It has since been used in many other contexts, including Richard Nixon. It was the title of a 1901 book byFrank Norris, where it stands for the Southern Pacific Railroad. None of these need a link here, for this particular use is not notable. We need an article on Cultural references to octopus. Or a completely new article under the present title, where I suppose this might possibly get a mention, just for completeness. DGG (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra (erotic actress)

Pornographic actress, but shows no sign of passing WP:PORNBIO. No sources other than a nearly trivial film database entry, and none other available. gnfnrf (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 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) 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass the basic criteria or pornographic actor criteria of WP:BIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial bio of someone nobody has ever heard ofPolitics n such (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable actress Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilligan's Island (island)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gilligan's Island (island)

The location of the island is already in the main article and the rest is trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial information; no verifiability, and by extension no notability. The Man in the Rock (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep not a very good article but given the popularity of the show and the size the main article (Gilligan's Island) it's a reasonable split. JJL (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Gilligan's Island is notable, but that doesn't make this article by extension notable. If reliable sources are found for this subject that would make it notable; it would also need a significant rewrite. The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see the article as acceptable in the context of Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles. JJL (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and RockManQ, I mean... come on. JuJube (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Gilligan's Island is the unnoficial name ..." - this and a complete lack of sources make this decision fairly easy (plus there is WP:OR, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:RS, WP:N, ...). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is entirely trivia and speculation. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable, as per previous comments. Though perhaps a case for keeping the article if you throw in some GDFL photos of Tina Louise as Ginger. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all except Elmer A. Lampe. I'm happy to userfy on request. lifebaka++ 00:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ward A. Wescott

Head coaches of lower division college football teams which don't apear to be notable. Again I've only nominated coaches with only a single reference which is both trivial and not independent. Any coaches with other claims to notability have not been included. Nor have recent coaches. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. Also nominated:

Dpmuk (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except for P. Norris Armstrong as he has a pretty size-able number of wins, and for that, I am neutral for him. --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question' Could you outline how you checked? DGG (talk) 17:10, 20 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, Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 06:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all due to lack of non-trivial references from non-first-party sources. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All for collaboration and future expansion. Head coaches of notable programs are notable. By the way, I just became aware of this AfD. I will list it with the appropriate projects.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way Walter J West article is being re-tooled as he has been found to have a career in the NFL. This is what commonly happens with college coaches--they don't do just "one thing" but have many areas they impact. The collaboration with other users helps to lead to improvement of such articles, and AfDs buried in large piles (we had 58 others in the last week at our project, not incliding these 18!) gives a tough response time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elmer A. Lampe (coach 1934-37) appears to be the same as Elmer Lampe who was head basketball coach for the Georgia Bulldogs 1938-47, and Dartmouth Big Green ~1948-51. I added the appropriate templates to his page. I presume that the Bulldogs aren't a minor college/team? Tassedethe (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep Robert Larsen (coach 1977). There is also a Robert Larsen who coached the Chicago Maroons from 1980-82. His record was 3-23-1 there. Possible keep depending on the notability of the Maroons, record etc. Tassedethe (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The University of Chicago has had a Division III team since the late 1960s, after having nothing more than intramural teams or no team at all for the thirty previous years. It's even less notable than before, even presuming that this is the same fellow. RGTraynor 18:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the rest No indication that they achieved anything other than coaching at a minor college, with no titles, trophies, awards etc. Tassedethe (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of non-trivial sources. -Djsasso (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All(except for Lampe): for failure to meet WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BIO. I'm unimpressed with "appears to be the same" or "possibly the same fellow," lines that have come up a lot in these minor coach AfDs; more often than not, there is no evidence that they are in fact the same people, and in two cases already they've been shown not to be. RGTraynor 18:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm very pleased to confirm that Elmer A. Lampe is Elmer Lampe, coach at the University of Georgia. From Carroll College: The First Century, 1846-1946. Google Books searches also throw up that he published at least 2 academic papers on on sport: Statistics as an Aid to Football Strategy in Scholastic Coach and How to Play Defensive End in The Athletic Journal. Tassedethe (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for Lampe as a DI coach at Georgia. Every time we hit one of these mass nominations, it seems like at least one of these coaches has something. I'd request that the nominators do some due diligence before mass nominating. matt91486 (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I too am uncomfortable with these mass housecleaning efforts. They seem quite pointy and in defiance of trying to work collaboratively. If these were put in list form, for instance, and tied to the respective teams this would seem fine if these people are otherwise non-notable. I've yet to see one of these list AfDs where all were deleted. And having to cope with 18 AfDs at once is quite imbalanced, IMHO. And these are simply the latest 18 after nearly 60 others were sent through the ringer over the last few weeks. -- Banjeboi 00:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You've said this elsewhere, on the Articles for Deletion talk page, and were answered there: that in fact mass AfDs are encouraged to avoid clogging up the works, when they can be properly bundled together in a common theme ... and as to that, AfD copes quite well with a hundred or more nominated articles a day. If you'd like to change consensus to officially discourage them, that's fine, but this isn't the venue to make that case. RGTraynor 03:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I understand mass AfDs generally speaking, but I don't think that excuses the nominator from making sure that some of the articles aren't notable for other reasons. matt91486 (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It took a good bit of digging by more than one editor, seemingly, to come up with the information for Lampe. As it happens, the explicit onus to prove notability or to find reliable sources isn't on the nominator at AfD. Doing a spot check should be encouraged (although there's a lot of resistance to that, coming out of the same discussion), but requiring noms to "make sure" is unreasonable. That being said, User_talk:Benjiboi seems to think there's something wrong with evidence of independent notability turning up with a coach or two in these mass AfDs. Frankly, I'm all for it: several sets of eyes are better than one, and this is a perfectly good time to save an article if feasible. I can't imagine what's uniquely disruptive about such scrutiny being done at AfD as opposed to the previous year, when none was being given at all. RGTraynor 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point, and I do have one, is that instead of taking dozens of football articles to AfD at all why not engage the creators and editors to instead convert the majority into useable list articles. The last AFD would have made a fine article taking material we already had. Instead two of the list stayed that were able to stand on their own, within the days of AfD process and the rest were deleted. I suggested then a merge but got no response. That an article isn't improved for months at a time isn't surprising. That 18 aren't whipped into shape in days is also unsurprising. -- Banjeboi 21:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And nothing prevents that from being done at any time, pre- or post-AfD: just about all the information on almost all of these AfDs are the years of service and won-lost records, all cribbed off of the respective college websites. (Come to that, nothing prevents you from doing that now; turning this AfD into a list would take what, about twenty minutes?) RGTraynor 23:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all as rediculous bundle nomination. Bundle nominations are for subjects whose independent notability is unlikely. Such as all books in a series, all parts of any whole. These are all people, and each could be a famous cook, politician, author, town drunk, murderer, cat-juggler, female impersonator, gold digger, worm eater, or gold medal winning Olympian. Each must be considered separately, so this nomination is doomed. Speedy close the mess. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most but Keep Larsen and Lampe I am also not opposed to an IAR relisting for a few days to allow editors time to look through these some more. I would support that more than a no consensus close here. I understand that mass AfD's are trying but this one (at least by % found to be notable) seems to have been well researched. And before we go blaming the nominator for causing this mess single handedly, we have to remember that the CFB project took it on themselves to operate by their project-wide consensus on notability when creating and policing articles, rather than WP:ATHLETE. I would also be fine with a redirect or merge to each respective program. Protonk (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An extremely lazy bundle nomination Each one of these need to be looked at as a separate AFD. Close this nonsense. SashaNein (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is it isn't a notable character or a likely search term TravellingCari 02:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalina (The Naked Brothers Band)

Just a plot regurgitation for a film and TV character. No significant standalone ghits. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although technically I created the stub, it was only to split it out from a disambig page I was cleaning up 1 1/2 years ago. I don't object to its deletion. Chris the speller (talk) 00:19, 18 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) 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 10:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 10:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Naked Brothers Band main article. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable kid's show sidekick. No one is going to type this long title in to look for information on this character. Nate • (chatter) 08:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The plot summary is already covered in the film article, so no merger necessary. I can't see the benefit of a redirect. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LocalCooling

This defunct software is not notable or even available anymore and is only sourced to the author of the software and some forum posts. Miami33139 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheMolecularMan (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this defunct software is not notable. The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Equendil Talk 09:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Delete - No sources to indicate why this software is notable. TN‑X-Man 14:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Being defunct (why is everyone italicising that word?) is not a reason for deletion: Wikipedia covers history too. A Google News search finds what look like reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pencil trick

I have nominated this for deletion as it has been unreferenced for two years. This may be a real trick in electronics but it is not notable to the world at large. If sourced, this information could belong somewhere else but Wikipedia is not a how-to either. Miami33139 (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being non-notable with no reliable sources. Not widely-known source in the world. --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I've heard of this, certainly - but I doubt very much that there are reliable, verifiable sources that would confirm its notability, nor does my (admittedly limited) search reveal anything to support the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Surely the fact that you have heard of this means that it is notable enough to remain as a seperate wikipedia article. All it needs is to be expanded by someone who has a good knowledge of the topic. If every page with a topic which you didn't know fully about was deleted, how would you learn any new information if you were looking to find out more about the topic by using wikipedia and learning from others who have experience in that field of technology? 90.206.245.69 (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're going in two different directions, here. I concur that the Pencil trick exists, and that I've heard of it - but that's not enough for an encyclopedia article on the subject. Here, we need multiple Reliable Sources that discuss the subject's Notability, and my point was that I don't think those sources exist for this. Quite honestly, one magazine article discussing the technique would prove me wrong, but I'm not finding that. As for individuals with knowledge of the topic, they would still need to provide independent sources to document their edits - otherwise, it would be Original Research, which is also not permitted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, nothing to support this as a separate article at all. If anyone can find a reliable source we could put line about it at Overclocking, but I didn't even see that (although I too didn't look all that hard). Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere when I think pencil trick, I think of what happens when you type that into YouTube... an oriental kid twisting a pencil or pen around his or her finger in various ways that the rest of us can't do. 70.51.8.158 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I am sure this is real, I dare say it is too obscure even for Wikipedia, except for perhaps a brief mention in the overclocking article. --SJK (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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