Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Caldorwards4 (talk | contribs) at 00:47, 21 September 2008 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Guy: Shown in the Cinema, on November 23rd. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 20 September 22 >

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. I predict that this article will be deleted for being a crystal ball'er seicer | talk | contribs 14:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy: Shown in the Cinema, on November 23rd

Family Guy: Shown in the Cinema, on November 23rd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Too soon for an article, only Google hits I could find say the movie is in talks, no plot, no release date (like in the title) Caldorwards4 (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is not even enough information for any sort of article. The article is completely unreferenced, and very few google hits with any sort of information or from reliable third party sources. --Banime (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MuZemike (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The odd title is based on the assertion, since removed, that the film would be released "on November 23, 2010". It could begin production within the next year. Let's wait to see what President Palin has to say about it. Mandsford (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Let's wait to see what President Palin has to say about it." Please, this is a family-friendly encyclopedia. We don't want to scare people.  :) JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unverified crystal ballery. It's already mentioned, though not sourced, at Family Guy#Feature length productions anyway. Cliff smith talk 01:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax article similar to a previously deleted Drawn Together article created by the creator of several previously deleted articles. Many sources are complete speculation, stemming merely from a comment made by Seth MacFarlane on The Tonight Show (and even that seems to say that he only said that he was "in talks with Fox Film" and that a film could be produced next year). It's mostly crystal ballery mixed in with hoax and pure speculation Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of reliable sources, crystallery, etc. miranda 06:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters has inspired some editor here to create a series of other articles about theatrical films with long and implausible titles based on animated television series. However, we are only interested in such articles if the theatrical films actually exist. Please warn the article creator accordingly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELET'D! -i know it's CoolNSexyRickz all the time. He's not welcomed in this Wiki. TVB 11:11, September 21, 2008 (UTC)
  • Requested speedy deletion. There is almost no real content in the article --Church of emacs (Talk | Stalk) 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't request an article for speedy deletion while it is undergoing an AFD. AfD is used to determine consensus to see if an article should be kept or deleted. miranda 15:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of there being anything wrong with tagging an article for speedy deletion when it's up for AfD, presuming the speedy tag is appropriate. Have you got a link to this, by any chance? Just curious. (Although, for the record, I don't think the tag *was* appropriate in this case. Also for the record, staying neutral in this debate.) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Schuym1 (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as classic WP:CRYSTAL situation. Also, the title given to this article is not only puzzling, it makes the whole thing look like a hoax. 23skidoo (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notable information is confirmed. Martarius (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources given don't include that title. I said it before, and I'll say it again, this reads more like something read straight from a movie poster rather than an actual movie title. Most movie posters have release dates. Sure, McFarlane gets often too unrealistic with his gags, but common, would he make such a ridiculous title? I don't think so. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:38, 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 per WP:SNOW. Schuym1 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shikoku Eighty 8 Queen

Shikoku Eighty 8 Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources for this team. The only source on the article is the official site. The league that the team plays in doesn't have a page, same with the members. Schuym1 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete completely unsourced and looks to be completely non notable --Banime (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. But Eighty Eights exist in V.challege leage (Japan). The source is V.League Official website.
http://www.vleague.or.jp/prog/team/team.php?mode=pc&kind=outline&season=&league=challenge_w&teamid=w_88queen
I'm not good at writing English, so you may un-believe the article. --Chiba ryo (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • But that is not independent of the subject. Schuym1 (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You creating a page for the league wasn't such a good idea because the league appears to be non-notable also. Schuym1 (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VG ☎ 01:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Can someone clarify something for me: is this a fully professional league? If so, then by WP:ATHLETE a player for this team would be notable, and by extension, the team and the league itself. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't know. When I searched for sources, all I could find was a bunch of blogs. Schuym1 (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you search in Japanese? Sources for second-level leagues (of anything but football) are likely to be only in the country's language. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just an observation: Arguments for non-notability based on lacking an article is highly dubious when it comes to anything in non-English-speaking countries. Wikipedia has vast holes in its coverage outside the Anglosphere. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here is what I found: http://www.stjohns.edu/athletics/pr_atl_070518b.stj. Does that count as a fully professional league? Schuym1 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Schuym1 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it's in English. Schuym1 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would a fully-professional league team normally play a college team from another country? Honest question: I don't know enough about volleyball. But color me skeptical. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:12, 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 Keep per improvements. GlassCobra 15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. 158

P.S. 158 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete as an unnotable elementary school. Tavix (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable, completely unsourced. --Banime (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced and little content. It's probably just as well that it has no sources, or there would be somebody who would urge a keep because "It's been mentioned in The New York Times so it has to be notable!" No reason, however, that this can't be mentioned in an article about the Region 9 schools. Mandsford (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As proven below, it does have in depth sources beyond "mentioned." --Oakshade (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand with information from the following NYT articles: [1], [2] and, especially [3] which shows the notability -- an long 2008 NYT article devoted primarily to the school, and [4], a NYT article specifically on the history of the school. And from another source, [5]. As for mentions, there's a few hundred in G News, but I didn' t include these. Few elementary schools could match this now--the prominence is not accidental--consider the school location. However, as more newspaper backfiles become easily available, I think we will be able to find something close to this for a few hundred at least--very few major newspaper backfiles are as easily available as the NY Times. DGG (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn; sources above mostly use it as an example (e.g., "hundreds of city schools like P.S. 158") or a trivia story (the archivist). JJL (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage is in-depth. That it's covered as an "example" is all the more indication of its notability. The New York Times describes the attributes of this "example" in detail. --Oakshade (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per the in-depth New York Times articles on this topic found by DGG above, one of which written by noted journalist Jacques Steinberg. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete lacks any sources and notability, also in regards to the above comments just because it is mentioned in the New York Times does not make it notable. If that were the case then thousands of people listed in the obituaries every year would be notable and deserve their own wikipedia articles, why because they are in the New York Times.--User:Twkratte 06:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lacks any sources? That's completely contradictory of reality. The scope of the NYT coverage is far beyond "mentioned" and is in great detail. --Oakshade (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is the actual notability being claimed here? It has produced "some of the highest" test scores in a particular city, it is "considered one of the best" schools in that particular city, and it's one of a number of schools taking part in a pilot scheme for standardised education. Of the two refs, the Steinberg NYT article is a piece about the pilot scheme which just happens to use this participating school as an example - it doesn't say the school is special or different from the others piloting the scheme - and the Siegal article is a local-interest story about some old written records turning up. No assertion or sourced evidence for the school's notability per se. Karenjc 12:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Karenjc. It looks like there's not much material to expand the article, so it seems like this will be another stub forever claiming "this school exists". VG ☎ 01:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how about that article devoted specifically to the history of the school? How many elementary schools have something like that? And I want to mention that I have over the last two years been among those trying to keep most articles about elementary schools merged or deleted. This is not one of the areas where I'm an inclusionist--far from it. This one is an exception--at least it is till the world recognizes the rest of them as being worth this kind of detailed coverage and major newspapers and magazines give it. DGG (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this in what I hope will be considered neutral terms at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools, to get some wider discussion, , given that most people are rather bored with school afds. DGG (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went back to look at the refs cited in the article again in the light of DGG's comment above, assuming I'd missed something, but I haven't. The Siegal piece here is a few paragraphs - headed "Neighborhood Report: Upper East Side" - (my italics) about some old journals turning up that will give the school's Parents Association some material to help celebrate its centennial. It's not "an article devoted specifically to the history of the school", it's a couple of nice local interest paragraphs about a local school, and I honestly can't see how it can be said to be nontrivial, even if the local paper it's printed in happens to be the New York Times. Karenjc 08:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trivial" as defined by WP:NOTABILITY refers to "directory listings" or "passing mentions." Being the in-depth subject of two New York Times articles is far beyond a directory listing or passing mention. There has never been a "Local sources don't count" clause in any Wikipedia standard or guideline.--Oakshade (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual wording I'm working from is: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability. I really do respect the basis of your argument, and I have no personal feelings about the school and this AFD one way or the other, but I just don't see how the two sources together amount to substantial coverage of the school in its own right, or how the Siegal piece can be described as substantial or nonlocal. But I'll shut up now and let others decide :) Karenjc 09:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what is it about this school that is alleged to be noteworthy? The article says that it has "some of the highest test scores" and is "considered one of the best schools" and was "one of the first schools in the city to adopt very stringent teaching requirements" and I don't see how any of those accomplishments are especially significant. JJL (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable and verifiable sources provided are unquestionably about the school, satisfying the Wikipedia:Notability standard. This is a notable exception from the vast majority of elementary schools that would be unable to establish their notability using strong quality sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every elementary school has been written about in a reliable and verifiable source, so there is no exception here. Mandsford (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every elementary school has been the in-depth subject of major reliable sources like the New York Times as this one has. I've been editing on Wikipedia since 2006 and keep a very close eye on places AfDs and I've seen only a few elementary schools that have survived AfDs because most don't pass the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY as this one has.--Oakshade (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As with the Associated Press, the New York Times has a wire service and NYT stories are frequently reprinted elsewhere in the nation and the world. If P.S. 158 has been a news item in another paper besides the Times, that would be evidence of notability. Perhaps a better analogy would be the NYT's obituaries page. Having one's obituary there can be a sign of notability, as the 2000 book Fame At Last demonstrated; or it can be a sign that one was a resident of Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, etc. and that funeral services are at 1:00 this afternoon. Mandsford (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no "Sources must have been re-printed elsewhere" clause or anything like it in WP:NOTABILITY. If you'd like to introduce such a clause, you are welcome to suggest that on WP:N's talk page. The obituary argument is a red herring one as this is not an obituary, nor is it one that anyone can submit to a newspaper to be published in the "death notices" section. These are in-depth articles by a very reliable source written by reporter (one a very noted one) that have nothing to do with public submissions. --Oakshade (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to introduce a clause. I think it's fair to say that if this were Taylor Elementary School in Seymour, Indiana, and the claim to notability for Taylor Elementary was an article in the Seymour News entitled "New Standards Finding Way Into Schools" or "Journals Solve A School Mystery", most people would not consider that school to be worthy of its own Wikipedia page. But what would be the difference between the two schools? This discussion is likely to end in a keep or a no consensus, but honestly, P.S. 158 is no more special than any other elementary school. Mandsford (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to do with being "more special" than anything else, nor does it have anything to do with "fame," "importance" or "popularity". I think that it's fair to say that if the Seymour News is a reliable and verifiable source independent of the school, and if it has included significant coverage in the form of relevant articles that are about Taylor Elementary School, then a prima facie case would be met that the Wikipedia:Notability standard has been satisfied. That is the exact definition of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the New York Times references found by DGG and per the notable alumni section added by Jh12. I also found this mention in a book, which shows that the school has taught deaf children. And I also found another mention in another book which shows that the elementary school has been open sinc 1898. The media coverage in the NYT articles, the notable alumni, and the several literary appearances clearly establish this school's notability. Few elementary schools have that many reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per DGG and sources; elementary schools are not known for their publicists. -- Banjeboi 07:24, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KSnapshot

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

Non-notable software; no claim to notability provided, no references given to establish notability. Listed for AfD after {{prod}} removed, though article remains unimproved. Mikeblas (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be an official tool of KDE [6], or at least relevant to KDE... even not counting that, I don't believe in deleting articles about software products based on "notability", people seem to forget that there is no policy regarding that, only guidelines... SF007 (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article doesn't meet the GNG, and reads as an advertisement. It's also completely unreferenced, original research. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Describing self-evident features of some software is not OR. VasileGaburici (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. It isn't? Where do the Wikipedia policies establish that? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The software itself is a primary source. WP:OR does not disallow the use of primary sources for independently verifiable facts, only for interpretation. Since functionality and features can be independently verified by anyone downloading the software (and especially as the software is freely available), giving these in the article is therefore not OR. And frankly, even if WP:OR didn't say this explicitely, I'd say it's pretty much common sense -- do you need a citation to say that a human hand usually has five fingers? -- simxp (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want an article that tells me a "human hand usually has five fingers". How often is "usually"? Once we assign a number to it, we certainly need references. But I can't figure out how this is relevant; this article offers "facts" that aren't readily verifiable, and aren't sourced in the article. Even if OR is solved, the problem of notability remains. Both would be solved together, given meaningful and substantial references. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best piece of wiki-lawyering I've seen in a long time. A statement like "99.8% of humans have 5 fingers on each hand" surely needs a citation, but a common-sense statement like "a human hand usually has five fingers" certainly doesn't need one. Compare Polydactyly with Human_hand#Variation. Case dismissed. VG ☎ 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree however that notability is hard to establish for this. Some window managers have built-in screenshot capabilities. I don't see how this function being a separate program for KDE makes it notable. A line or short paragraph in the page for KDE should suffice. Weak keep. Mentioned in half a dozed books along with the other KDE components. Gnome-screenshot is only mentioned in a couple. Alternatively, merging with the main KDE article avoids a forever-stubby article. YMMV. VasileGaburici (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that WP:N says that references to establish notability must offer "significant coverage". I don't think the offered references meet the spirit of that requirement. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 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, Stifle (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main KDE article, per VasileGaburici. --Banime (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There isn't any evidence of non-trivial coverage of this software product that I can find. Including the google books search. JBsupreme (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Even though there are only guidelines regarding notability Wikipedia:Notability the sources established in the article are in direct violation of a Wikipedia Policy. That policy is WP:NOTMANUAL, the sources are merely manuals or guides on how to use KSnapshot, directly violating WP:NOTMANUAL.Twkratte (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand what WP:NOTMANUAL is about. That policy prevents Wikipedia itself from becoming a manual. It does not prevent Wikipedia from citing books that are intended as manuals. VG ☎ 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if an article is writen like a manual, if should just be deleted? So if the Ubuntu article was writen like a manual (like someone suggested some time ago), that was a valid reason for deletion? I think that is a very flawed reason for deletion... SF007 (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never wrote that WP:NOTMANUAL is absolute grounds for deleting an article. If an article can be adjusted/rewritten so it's not a WP:NOTMANUAL, then it should be kept. For instance, if I write a "How to install Ubuntu" article on Wikipedia, then it should be deleted because there's no way to rewrite that narrow topic in an encyclopedic manner. OTOH, if the article on "Ubuntu" has some howto parts, those can be rewritten/deleted; there's no point in deleting the whole article, which would be throwing the baby out with the water in that case. I hope I made myself clear. VG ☎ 10:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to User:Twkratte... sorry about the misunderstanding... it's my fault... I made the reply in a bad place... SF007 (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of citations from reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or Merge per VasileGaburici. -- Banjeboi 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventually, merge into a unified article describing all the KDE utilities that aren't quite notable enough for their own article (possibly by expanding List of KDE applications to give a short paragraph about each application?). Until then, Keep so that the merging editors have something to merge and don't have to rewrite it all themselves. -- simxp (talk) 02:19, 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) 00:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tux Magazine is a reliable source among the Linux user community for topic coverages, and it does exert editorial control over content. So, they may be blog entries, but they have been vetted by an editor. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by PS. An eventual merge, as proposed above, likely makes sense. Hobit (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above SF007 (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or certainly at the very least merge. Unforgiven24 (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above coverage in reliable sources. As a KDE user I've used it and seen it discussed a bunch of times, but of course the sources are more important than anecdotal evidence. Merging might not be the best option, but I don't have a major objection. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:18, 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. GlassCobra 15:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Karma

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

Currently non-notable album by a currently non-notable band. Limited ghits, no third-party references, can't find an entry on allmusic - fails WP:BAND. (Article synopsis section is also a copyvio of [7], though this may be due to creation by the same person). CultureDrone (talk) 12:13, 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, Stifle (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, completely unsourced, just a link to their myspace --Banime (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced and non-notable. No reliable ghits in sight. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:30, 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. Black Kite 23:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tania (The Faerie Path)

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

Non-notable fictional characters from book by redlinked author. Somno (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination also includes:

Rathina (The Faerie Path) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete Fictional characters from a book have no encyclopedic value. Information on these character can be dealt with on the books article page, unless they are well noted in popular culture and seem to have a life of their own outside of the book.--«JavierMC»|Talk 06:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hey guys. I understand your comments about the redlinked author. I have written a letter to the publisher requesting forward to the author. I've asked him some information about himself, other books he has written and any other facts that I can include on a page for him. As for the two character pages for deletion, the characters appear in six novels, three unwritten yet. Would it be better to include all characters on a single page? I am only trying to meet the standards for character articles set by Wikiproject Novels. I do not take responsibility for the Rathina page. I intended to work on it eventually, but I am still working on Eden. --TParis00ap (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Received the message about the author. In that case, I won't build a page for him. There is not enough third party information to create such an article. From what I understand, he uses several aliases, but I cannot verify it. In any case, I still think this article should stay. Not that I use this as an excuse, but there is no other information about this novel or it's characters elsewhere. And while that point may be mute, consider that I created the page because I was looking for that information without the need to search the book for the bits and peices I needed. If there are others out there like me that are interrested in this information, than the information does indeed hold value. Perhaps an entire page should not be dedicated to one character, but would a single page with all the characters be a better solution? Or would putting the information on this character on the book page be more prudent? What's worthless to one person could be worthwhile to another. And I am sure this argument is like beating a dead horse, but I spent a lot of time on it. Thanks. --TParis00ap (talk) 23:11, 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, Stifle (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, TParis00ap, but you made the point yourself when you said you could not find enough third party information or other sources. That means its nonnotable and has only trivial coverage at best (this article has none currently). Maybe use some of this information in an article about the book itself, not as a separate article. --Banime (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The book, The Faerie Path seems to have a review in PW, but the WP article seems a copypaste; I would advise the ed. to try top instead write one good article on the author, which can larger be expanded if the books prove to be best sellers. A separate article on a character in children's fiction is justifiable only for principal characters of the most important prize-winning novels, not as a matter of course. Otherwise, I doubt anyone would even use the name as a search term unless they knew the book. DGG (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if I gather all ya'alls opinions, your feel I should expand about The Faerie Path article to include more information about Tania but not the entire Tania article? Thus fullfilling reading interests without creating an entirely seperate page for Tania? What about a Character page that included all the characters from the series? Could I do that or must I compact it all onto one page?--TParis00ap (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to create a character list-article before the main article has gotten too long because of real-world information (i.e. not directly-plot-related information). This makes sure that every information gets due weight. – sgeureka t•c 19:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, do as you must. I'll work on modifying the main article. --TParis00ap (talk) 02:18, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Boogie

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


Contested prod. The artist is not notable and fails WP:MUSIC plus lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The research that went into preparing this AfD was woefully inadequate. I would not usually say it so sternly, but the relevant Google News search was even pointed out when the article was de-prodded. This is an influential DJ and mixtape producer, and it really only takes a glance at a Google News archive search to see that. I have added seven references to reliable sources, and there are plenty more. It passes WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But are those reliable sources? Corvus cornixtalk 04:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all of the edits by Jayzee69 were to AfD discussions on one single day. Corvus cornixtalk 04:58, 21 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) 00:02, 21 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) 00:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you think is insufficient about the current sources listed? There are more that could be added but I thought this was an adequate sampling for WP:NMG criterion #1. He was mentioned in Rolling Stone for having one of the "Top 5 Mix CDs" of 2006. There are articles about him around the time he became the DJ for Cleveland Cavaliers games. There are many mentions of him for his collaborations (I've added just a small sample of those). This is not trivial coverage, in my view. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG. Some of the sources are in passing, but the plain dealer one is all about him and his work, and the Miami Herald one has two paragraphs praising his work. I stopped looking there, but they seem to meet WP:N acceptably. Hobit (talk) 13:14, 26 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. and not likely any to come. It's already been re-listed once, and !votes and their arguments remain roughly evenly split. While the article would benefit from some work, that's a matter for editing and not deletion. TravellingCari 03:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Youngren

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

Non-notable evangelist, the article has been tagged as orphaned since 2006, no reliable sources. There is one hit on Google news for this name, but it's a passing mention on a sports page about his son-in-law. This might qualify as a reliable source, but he's really just the minister at a non-notable church. Corvus cornixtalk 01:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What numbers? Corvus cornixtalk 05:01, 21 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) 00:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is still unsourced, topic seems non-notable with trivial coverage. --Banime (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Banime (talk · contribs), some minor coverage and a few minor mentions but no real significant discussion. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Close call. I ended up with the same articles Samuel J. Howard listed, but I don't think they add up to the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required by WP:BIO. --AmaltheaTalk 01:04, 26 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. Black Kite 23:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guntz

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable, no nontrivial coverage by reliable third parties. Lacks many references and only has gamefaqs links. --Banime (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — original research does not pay. Sources given are either not considered verifiable sources, tell nothing, or are dead links.
  • Note — I would also consider looking at Klonoa for AfD, as well, since that article is basically the same in problems as this. MuZemike (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - no notability here. Eusebeus (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Making an appropriate article for the purpose of this and related characters--there does not seem to be a combined list of characters for the series, or even a general article on the series, just on the individual games. This would be, as usual, the way to handle relatively minor characters. This is just one of the antagonists, if I understand correctly. DGG (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plot summary, game guide, and in-universe material. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non notable because there are no reliable third-party sources that cover the subject. Randomran (talk) 20:24, 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 redirect to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) . No independent notability. Black Kite 23:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Grand Master Azrael

Supreme Grand Master Azrael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no independent reliable sources, not notable, likely fancruft DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DoubleBlue, no reliable sources and nonnotable. --Banime (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Was he Gargamel's cat in The Smurfs? Mandsford (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect to Warhammer 40000Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) per WP:NOT#OR as well as lacking significant coverage in verifiable, third-party sources. MuZemike (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note — Changed redirection based on the below's recommendation. It does seem to make more sense while looking at that article. Also changed to a weak redirect as seeing someone search for this term is very unlikely. MuZemike (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and plot recapitulation of a non-notable fictional subject. You can add a redirect or not. It doesn't seem to be a likely search term, but you might as well. If you do redirect, the target should be to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000), not Warhammer 40,000. Protonk (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to say to merge into list of minor Warhammer 40,000 characters, but such an article doesn't exist. It might be a good start to getting rid of some of the most ridiculously crufty articles. No notability outside the universe, and I'm not even sure it has much notability inside it either. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into an appropriate article for the minor characters, making one if necessary--or if relevant, finding one to undelete--I have not kept track of the large number of uncoordinated deletions. This should be the usual way of dealing with these characters. DGG (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ADHOM. MuZemike (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is that relevant to DGG's comment? GlassCobra 15:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems like more of an argument against the nom rather than for or against the article, but I admit to stretching it out a bit. MuZemike (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 07:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to an appropriate List of... or the main Warhammer article. Do not merge as content is in-universe plot/trivia. No need to delete unless one of the die-hards sweeps through reverts the redirect. --EEMIV (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DGG. GlassCobra 15:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plot summary and fictional detail just like the rest of the Warhammercuft that's been in AFD lately. No evidence of notability via substantial coverage in independent sources. I don't see this being a likely search term so a redirect is unnecessary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:22, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_21&oldid=239898329"